^s£-ii^. '^'y-~~^^%, VIQNI dO NOIJ.niIJ.SNOS 3HA JO ZS5/9ES a^^lJ^iV (•0"0) JndsBpg g-o{i,[ uoisTAia jndsayig •a'AVd '-isagjO IcuoisiAia qng [g i.-^ j ~ ' i' ^Es^.^ rft y ^w'w\ ^v^/<v. x^-' > ('O'O) Jndsi'(ig-usia UOTSIAIQ TpSunpl y •a'M'd'^33!BO iruoisTAia qng [S ,, SU' ('O'O) mdiEa-m'AU'qg •s-M'a '•Udaa sqjoAY onqnd '.toqsjoag qgnojqj, qjegsiu^qqo jo a-t^g [^ :siNaaNOdsaa snsaaA jndsrjig-^sia •S-qBJ. 'JBPS o/S SjA,, £S3§B-'reSJBI.(0]/l{ 0/g nCreg jndsBpg-usiQ •s-qej,'Bji(0]/\[o/a SJ'A 6-|7 sS-e 'Bjiiieq3 O/Q reg aifea jndsBpg-usiQ sg-qej. 'BJqopi o/y sjA gg a§B'p'doQ o/g iqsmig jndsBlia-WSTQ %-qBA 'T^qoi/l o/y siS. is 3§B '{BdnBg 0/g UBq^rqg jndsBna-usTa 'S-qBA 'T-iqoM o/a SA<: 6S 3§Bpune^nmp'g o/g JefAV nrea jndsBug-usia 'ipSunn-qBj. 'i;npjBg o/y \ s.iA' 93 3§B 'nB^nqg o/g IBdoQ jndsBiig-nsia 'ipSHnn-qBj.'uoBSBMnna o/g sj-if QS 3SB 'arejiqy o/g ureg Bqejfeg [9 is [/ [£-"' IX ^ c^* -f/ ^^A? ./^^ /y/^/,\ st^ ,?^/ f^/W^ ^ ir •4^' A 'r- :saaNOij,uad VI Xi-HC-78 *II*IMI sh*rrai 3^ •iii<iici<i, o^flwie, Rtctl«y .M-^.^r.JJ.O^...^ 2004' 3< 1^1 «si«i>(i?rfg^aT) sn^Tqirf^ira; W S*i<ff^) ^iiWflfersii^T •ni<il<n<n-i *fit«iT^'fei<!)<Rit<ii< f^T<*11^1 1.2.2007 '. coii Mr. Ashok Vaishnav, coijnse! for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Oubey, Pane With the consent.of matter is heard finally ond di Common order dictate passe-d aparatety. A copy of this order petitions. tawyer for the respondents/State. leamed coun^f for •the parties, the ^ossdof. in W.P. No. 3147 of 2004 inopen Court. be placed on record in connected writ Sd/- satishK. Agnihotri Judge ^l^- /^ i¥!W!- |i'!ti:'iltlir!"ii-ri HI6H COURT OF CHH/tTTISSARH AT BIUtSPUR W. P. No. 3147 of 2004 Petitioner : Suclhrom Versus Raspondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another W. P. No. 3188 of 2004 Petitioner : Mohit Raro Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgarfi ond oinother W. P. No. 3279 of 2004 Petitioner : Durdeshi Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt'isgar+i and another W. P. No. 4929 of 2004 Petitioners : Shobha Ram cnd others Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarii and ano-tfier W. P. No. 4830 of 2004 Petitioner ; Johan Bijhwar Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another W. P. No. 5027 of 2004 Petitioners : LeelaBai ond another Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarii ond onother W. P. No. 1103 of 2005 Petitioners ; Bajrdia gam ond othars Versus Responcfents : State of Chhattisgarh cmd others And W. P. fsl No. 614 of 2007 Petitioners : Ju'thel Yactav and olhers Versus Respondents : State of Chhatl-isgarh and another y-' SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agmhotri. J Mr. Ashok Vaishnav, counsel for Ihe petitioners. Mr. Arv'md Dubey, Panel Lawyer for •the respondents/State. OROER (Passtsd on l*t day of FebnKxry, 2007) The following order of the Court- is possed by Satish K. ^gnthotri. J. 1. Leomed counsel oppearing for the petitioners as wetl as teamed Penel lawyer appearing for •the respondents/Stcrte jointly submit •that the foct's of the present case are simitar to that of in W. P. No. 454/2005 / (Ram Prasad Yactav & others vs. Sta-te of Chhnttisgarh & others), which was ollowed vide order dnted 4.1.2007. They furl+ier submit that the question of kw»involved is also the same. 2. In view of •the above stated submisa'ons inade by leamed counsel for the part-ies, these writ petitions are allowed in terms of the order ckxted 4.1.2007 passed by this Court m W. P.No. 454/2005. No order as to costs. 3. A copy of this order be plcued on record in connected writ petitions. Sd/- . SarishK. Bablu Judge