sAoqe PSUOT^BS® sy Wt't1 sqBstnrodEis.i &flp» 3®sxei-cenf-tsssa •SA0C(B paaoTtBS®sy iiiSHQTq.'ytsia sq-» 30 eafs^VtafvTea *z 'T "vxasE a®Mor.iaaiisaoa aa ast^/sz^awSBEsa^vaeS&^si.SsaSaxytt •aB.Sfe'a awSj^a •s'w&Qoa^ 5 .itsnigeaaa; 3@ ,36'^aa-rpa •W®jp*£ *S*0 'iiwBpsg •^s^a^s'yig '.IBetTea *T®<t@affBfT^ s¥Fs®13ab *ffiBTPtyt»g areZBg i!:3:B^eSee *pN>8 <a<& *6aT^TT's>g'^asa a&T^s^saift-os te3ws©.•^aT.Tas^a - 'ia Ssl'ivX-^aj6^.'-aKffvasSei~e3i (ssB^s'ea) aea^STfisa Xqa^g 'g "'*S*0 fa9iSyes vypa^sTQ •anef'ea ..•'•.'ay^^sre'yaaaee 'sfaEawiXESaQ SA^yaaaSe-BQ '&ieqssiase qBaoaqq ••qaeSST^^q^ 3®s^eqs sqa *T S fl S 8 a A •ea'wtSBae^EH' 'Tve&sscwi '^4STS y '6^ *Tvsssxwi 'atSm^, jA.sffeefW arees fp'sea as reyy^ 'TP^U S&BWa 3BSS *XSt&©3 spoaog ^e SairpTSsa *pT®q8Sa6: -BoTqeffiaooo 'saeaX ^4 ^.laeqe psSe •ffsvvceiaB'eiQ Stv^e^efexa o/p» Vfavs 9 t^avs "WB 7 ,^f SfflgaffltOdSas ...• ^^. ....••.:'.a€^& .^^^" •^^""" ^- aaNoi£Eitaa / M0Z/ OT^T]•©«•a*M / . ' • • "a&asv'a.a ffl wsssisssaiss aa syaoo H&TH ssaa, sx <9 ^ ''"-,,..:fwfl. ffw.l.l a^ \^ ^\ ^ ^ -f> r te^a,, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTI8GARH: BILASPUR Siii^e Bench: Hoa'ble Stel Satish K. Agnihotrl, J. W. P.No. 1140 of2004 Petitioner Respondents Versus Smt.Saral(g) Sarla The State of Chhattisgarh ofhers Shri Rakesh Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govemnient Advocate for the State/ respondents. ORDER (28th August, 2006) Leamed eounsel for the petitioaer on uistructions subinits that the petition has becoine infructuoiis on the groujid fhat that grievance of the petitioner has been redressed by tiie aufhorities, to which leamed counsel appeariug for the respondents/State has no objection. Consequently, the writ petition is disiaissed as haviag becoine uxlructuous. No order as to costs. % : \ Sd/-;,..:,.: SatisliK.^gmiiitotri —^ Judge