/ f^^ - (lSMSi1 %i" v ;. -'•'•^ .^^T£lB.iE2L«^S^L^£J[.HE±^£HS-^^xii§£2BLLSs-2s.,L» ,.r .. .. .^ . . . . • ^ ^^^..P|^Tj^.-.I.S^._:.^®fc.^CL^^_/:l2£>%: f&TlT-t.Ct^e^ ,..,.-.,^&^ p^^.-^^a.o.A...--- ft«"bc< RSSpO^'QQ.ITS ^ K^^TrA^eni Oh^rve aged a.l%mt 23 years daac^ter of ,Shrl laiarat Si.n^-1 Qgridl by caste^: R/b village 'Jarhapara* %oG^-i . ; DewetoFmo-i t Lor^i ^ J- | JsPpad paichayat 'Lozrai *• IMstfc*' B3.iaspur (C»G»), TERStj'S /<L* Stateof ChhgjfctA sgarh TbWttch: - Chief Secrefary mitii steri al ^ 0*K»S*1EfaaV£pt * Ra.i.pur (C.G<,)^ ^-2« Cbliector^ Bilaspur (C*G<:) 3» IMstri.et Etfccatlon Offi cer^^ m 1 aspur {C, G»),, 4» Chlef Sxe.Q.itive Of-ficer Jctipa(a PanchaYat torral ^ Mstt. HlasBir (e.G*)< -^'S^ Chlef &€eeat4ve ofQcer^ EMstrict P^iciiayat-r ^'J.aspt.ir (C.G.)» JP^TTlQI'T WI^ ^'^<X^_22^_jCV_' S_ ,-.fflMI^SSm«»2£3il£^.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETITION (S) No. 2056 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENT8 Ku. Triveni Dhun7e. VERSU8 State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Shri Suryakant Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Slui P.K.Bhaduri, Panel La^vyer forthe State/respondents 1 to 3 ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 28tt day ofOctober, 2009) 1. The petitioner has challenged tlie impugned order dated 17 November, 2006 (Amiexure P/l) whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation of submission of forged documents. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(8) No. 5828/2008. On the request of the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was pei'mitted to make a representation to the respondent authority and in tum, it was directed that if a representation was made, the same would be considered as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation. 2. Shri Mishi'a, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subniits that the representation made by the petitioner has not been decided as yet by the respondent-authorities. 3. Be that as it may, once the order impugned herein has been considered in earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No. 5828/2008, the petitioner is debaiTed from challenging the same, particularly when the representation has not been decided. Ifthe petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner has other remedy seeking compliance ofthe order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. 4. Thus, this petition is dismissed as not maintamable. No order asto costs. Aimt Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge