^j-z, • \Sr-Q ^ ^y. y^ ?^s 3<&i°^ ..•• ^oSS^ ...•••-"" <ff &^ ,j:'%i'/_ ^ \%> J * j 3.B. ^Alii^ i cs.\ v—^'/jf y ^\ /^ 'I, 'yi\~l / C^. ''.''€,^. y. '^' ! ^^n^-/ Buli Kashyap W/o Maheshwar Kashyap. Age about 39 years, R/o Danteshwari Ward, Ramnagar Para, Sela Bazar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) T ofChhattisgarh "'hrough- Secretary, icheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Bakward Class Welfare Department D.K..S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C. /!l MataRukamani Sewa Sansthan Samiti, Dimrapal, Tah. & District-Jagdalpur (C, ^^ ^) HIGH COORT OF CHHATT3SGARH AT BILASPuR SB_l HON'BLB SHM.JUSTICB PRITIHKER DI'WAKER •SllltlUKCiK. Bu.i Aasnvao State of C.G. 8s Others Shri S.P.Kale, counsei for the petitioner. Shri P.Das, G.A. for the State. (01.09.20Q9) With the consent of the counsei for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Contention of the counsel for the oetitioner is that nuir-ber of identical oetitions have been decided by this Court and one such case is V/.P. No. 4108/2005 (Smt. A.Lali Vs. State of C.G, Ss Others). He submits that this case is squarely covered with the abovenienuoned case and theretore at this stage he may be perniitted to withdraw this petition with liberty te i'ile representation before respondent No.l. He however submits that direction m.ay be issued tbr deciding her representation expeditiously. Counsel for the State subinits that at this stage he cannot make any statement as to whether the case of the petiaoner is covered with the order paased in aforementioned writ petition as relied upon by the petitioner. He further subniils that if the petitioner will make a representation the same would be decided in accordance with iaw arter scru.tinizing the factual ana leaal position of the case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrav.'n witn the liberty as aforesaid. In the eventuality of fiiing any such representation by the petitioner within a period ot' three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, it is expected that the same would be decided within a further period o! two months. It is made cleai' that this Court has not expressed aiiy opinion on merits of the case and the respondent No. 1 wculd be at liberty to decide the representation strictiy in accordance \viyi law. '-y Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge