IN THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. 1191 /2004 /^' PETITIONER Sudama Pandey, age 38 years^ / S/0 Late Ram Manohar Pandey / Constable667,QrNo.l6/l Police Line, Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS 1 ^^ RESPONDENTS ^-\ ^: SS^ri '^ i ^A II .. ^ ?.'01^ f^' ^^^^^ .^.^M^ w\ N-^>.?;§^"' •^§s:\'" ^' c\^v l<-< ' 1. Unionoflndia, Through: Secretary, Public Grievances and Govt. oflndia. c^^ y^w <;^^%^ <:^^>'"^' '^^ ^^1^^ / ^ 'pt L___ 2. State ofChhattisgarh., Through : Secretary Department ofHome (Police) Raipur (C.G.) 3. State ofMadhya Pradesh Through : Secretary., Department ofHome ( Police ) Bhopal(M.P.) 4. Inspector General of Police Bastar Range, Jagdalpur(C.G.) 5. Director General ofPolice Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-22 '^^r''^(PTT^T, ^nl^^Ko, fa<ni^i< 3T^T 'q^p^ .^•....±:..'l?.!.^^ ^ITHCII 5b^l<=h •^^8T' 37T^?T'^T f<rii<=h ^TI^T 5t)^i<=ti <yi^a 'STT^T ^n^H: ^Tf^T 09.07.a004 On a niention beiag raade, ti^< Shri Y.C.Sharma, counsel fo^ Shri S,K. Beriwal, Seiiior| India/respondent no, 1 on advaiice) Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Depu1| AkhU AgrawaA, Paael Lawyer for fh^ I.A. No. 4245/2004 forurgei^ Heard, Counsel for fhe petitioners s^ allocation of petitioners, He furth< i.e., W.P.No.578/2004 (Balendra ^ Union of India and ofhers) orders on 17.12.2003. He also producj 18.6.2004 passed in W.P. 1560/: others ~vs- Uindon of India and oth< sixmlar order xnay be passed ia fhisj Learaed counsel for fhe resi on fhe statenient of cozuisel for similar orders inay be passed, Haviag considered the facts ixiaterial on record aad considering| for the petitioner at fhe Bar aad cited above aad furfher fhe legal Autliorities ia not rcUeving the peti1 cbl^(<rt4l'1 'RT^ff"? ft^t iFaK^K '^3rf^R3TT^T niatter is taken up. the petitioners. Paael Lawyer for Union of |copy. v Advocate General wifh Shri State. ^t heariag is aUowed. ibniits fhat the inatter relates to submits fhat ixi siinilar laaftber ^hekhar Mishra and ofhers ~vs- piave been passed by this Court ^ed a copy of fhe order dated Sp04 (Jitendra Singh Toxnar and sjrs). Learaed coiin^el prays fhat case also, |ondents subnutted fhat relyuig tpie petitioner inade at fhe Bar, jaad circumLStafices of tihie case, I fhe statexnent niade bv counsel |n view of fhe jzidgnient/orders ^osition, the action of fhe State t^ioners caanot be sustamed aiid [•q^ ^p^ XI-HC-22 ^cf'^ipn^Tzr, ^WT^, ^<ni^^ HW^[ ^HIch ani^r ^^K ^MO.lk.y:- •M 200 'fN^ST' 3TT^T^T r<ril<=h sni^T $h^i<^ ^i^a STT^T^H^'^f^T -2-J chl^(d<lilr1 'RP^ft*^ l^st <P^^i< ^7 3rTf^P7 3T^T fhe petitioners are entitled for j| directed to reUeve fhe petitioners production of a copy of fhis order. Accordiagly, fhis petition Consequently, M.W.P.1602/' C,C, as per rules, i|leUeviag, The respondents are ^ithia 15 days from fhe date of stafcds disposed of /v. i004 also staads disposed of, Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge