tam-I QQURT 9F cHHAETiwARi-a mgmAsPgg WRH $§lmggjgg£$z2 (35: 20m Fmiiéongr. Raseed Ahmed Versus Resgondems Siate of Chhamsgarh & Others W9???” PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTIT'UTmN OF iNDiA ($B : Hon’big Mr, Satmh K Agmihetrig J.) Present :— Shri Harsh Wamhan, Advocate far the petitiener. $hri $hashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for {he State. Smi Sudeep Agrawal: Advocate for the respandent No3. QRDER gQRikLl {Pa$$ad an 15* day m‘ Septemtiier, 2WD) Learned counsei agpearing far ihe petitioner, submits ma? with the pa$sage of time, the petiiian has become infruetuoue. Learned counsel appearing for ether side owes not comirevert ihe above submiseion. 3. In view 0f the abave, the writ petmon ie dismiseed, as having become infructuoue. Sd/— Sau'sh K. Agnihou'i Judge