c. ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH W.P.(S)No. ^beb\ of 2010 PETITIONER ^•-^^ ^y-"" ^ ^'^••5- •^^•"" RESPONDENTS Mahendra Kumar Bhar, aged about 46 years, S/o. Shri T.K. Lal Bhar, R/o. Village Bandabri Deepa, Village Panchayat Katangtaraee, Block Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus ^:1) Sfate of Chhattisgarh through Secretaiy, Department of Panchayat, DKS Bhavan, Secretariat, Raipur (C.G.) / :2) Additional Collector for Collector Mahasamund (C.G.) , :3) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pithoura, District Mahasamund (C.G.) , :4) Sarpanch Village Panchayat, Katangtaraee, Block Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 371^1 ^ET R-licf} <T8T[ ^W^ ^^|cf) TST ^i^Kn^, ^til'M^Ko, [«idiy^< -^....^.fe:)...^KJ&.:...§.^..ULtP WqcW ^^-^•—--—-•••-••••••••••••••••-•••••••^ 200 ^TT^T TT?^ (^3^?) ^^TW^cT^rr^ 3y I Hun'uie Shri gVianindra ntoh 23-06-2010 Shri Abhay Kumar Tiwari, co|jnsei Shri Satish Gupta, GGvernt-nent N0.1 to 3. Submission of iearned court was initlaliy appointed as Guruji semces were terminated. it is terminated in the y'ear 1988, madt P/5) and 6/04/2010 (Annex-ure P/6)! submlts that in identlcai sltuations to pursue representation and the riet counsel for the peutioner hys pi^ No.1414/10 (Annexure P/7) and oij P/8). On the other hand, submissj thls petltion is hjghly beiated. Up| objection was raised by learned col counsei for the State is unable to It wlli be open for the representation of the petitioner iri direction can be Essued by this C<| petitlon is finaliy uisposed off. CM^f<n<41i "Hpraf ^f fe^l <F:»l^i< ^" 3tRTH3T?^?T fi Shrivastava, J. for the petltioner. Advocate ror the State/respondent ^sel for the petltloner Is that the petitioner f^r one academic year and thereafter his lubmitted that the petiuoner after having/f^^t^ ^ representatlon on 3/10/2008 (Annexure Learned counsel for the petitioner further ^pportunity has been granted by this Court letltions have been uisposeu5 off. Leamed jiced on record order passed in Vv.P.(s) jder passed in Vv.P.No.6127/98 (Annexure jon of iearned counsel for respondents that ^n belng inquired as to on what basis no msel for the State In earlier cases, learned eKp^ain. respondents to take decision on the accordance with law and at preserA no )urt. With the aforesaid observatlons, the Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge