SingEe Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASWR ma..~u‘.wmumwu-. wawwmw—x.—u—~u~um~- wRIT PETITION No. (mgé OF 2g£§ i nun-um.._w—u- ‘uu—u‘uu §3¥££9§§£ /: Dr. Bhulag. Prasad Sharma, Son of late Shri Shravan Prasad Tiwari, Retired Ayurved Chikitsa Aahikari, aged about 65 years, resi§ent of Pandriya, Bairag‘Para, Bistrict : Kabirdham ( Kawardha ) ~ C.G, VERSUS nu—wm f: 1 o ~-.—.~-m.. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh thruqgh the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare department; D.K.s. Bhavan, Raipur. State of Madhya Pradesh throug the Secretary, Health and ‘ Femily’Welfare Department; Vallabh Bhavan; Bhopal. Director, Indian System 0t Medicmne and HomeOpathy, Raipur ( C.G. ) Superintendent _ Cum _ District Ayurved officer. Bilasnur, ‘ District : éilaSpur ( C‘G ), , Dr. Indira Bhanu Patel, aged about 54 years, Son of Shri M.L. Patel, Retired Ayurved Chikitsa Aahikari, resident of village : Ebnda, Poet g Majh. gawan ( Katni ) District : tn M.P. ) K i ( \ M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W, P: No: 9759f 2% Pefi+ioner : Dr. Bhuluu Prasnd Shanna Verws Respondenfs : ' Smfe of Chha'r'risgurh and ofhers SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Justice, Satish K. Agniho‘tri. J' ( Present: Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advoca're for fhe petitioner. Mr. Safiér Gupfu, Depufy Eovemmen'r Advocafe for fhe responden'rs No. 1, 3 and 4/51afe. ORDER (Passed on fhis 15"“ Day of January, 2007) I. A. No. 6656/2006 This is an applimion for condonafion of delay in making paymenf of process fee. According +0 learned counsel for fhe pefifioner, fhe process fee has already heen paid on 23.3.2005. The application is ordered as prayed for. l earned counsel appearing for the pefi‘rioner as well as learned counsel appearing for The responden‘rs No. 1, 3 and 4 joinfly submif ihaf 1he facts of 1he presenf wrif pe‘mion are similar fa fhaf of in W. P. No. 19707/2003 (Dr. Indra Bhanu Pa‘rel vs‘ fhe Sfafe of Madhya Pradesh dc ofhers), which was allowed by 1he High Cour? of Madhya Pradeiw vide order da‘i'ed 6.11.2003. They fur'iher submif 'thaf fhe ques'l'ion of law involved is also fhe same.‘ u In View of fhe above stated submissions made by kamd counsel for fhe parfies, 'rhe wri'r pefifion is allowed in terms of fhe order dn'l'ed 7.11.2006 passed by fhe High Cour? of Madhya Pradeslo in W. P. No. 19707/2003 (Dr. Indra Bhanu Pare! vs. fhe Smle of Mndhya Pradesh & omers). ‘ In View of flue foregoing, fhe pefm'oner is direcled 1'0 make a represen‘lofion before The concerned ou‘fhorifies for grmrring benefn‘s of me said order awed 6.11.2003. me comma oufhorifies are direcfed fo consider and decide ‘H'ie case of the pefifioner, in occordance wi'ih law, on ifs own meri-r, wi'ihin o period of four weeks from fhe daie of receipf of The represenfofion. The wrif pefifion is accordingly disposed of. No order as 'l'o cosfs. ~ r *k’_ Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i r l i i l Nil