•\ •'. • • t HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5415 of200 S Petitioner ;.\ Respondents Versus 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Dr. Rajendra Prasad Shukla, aged about 40 years, son of Late Shri Rampati Shukla, Chief Executive OfRcer, Janpad Panchayat Patthaigaon, Dist. Jashpur :(CG), residenf of village Dhakhara, Post - Deogaon, Tah- Rajpurkarkarehuliyan, District Reewa(MP). The State of Chhattisgarh, throygh its Secretary, Departmeht of General Administration, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan,Raipur,CG. The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfae, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, CG. The Union of India, through its Secrstery, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances Reorganization Ceil, New Delhi. State of Madhya Pradesh, through its Secretary, Department 6f General Administration, Vatlabh Bhawan, Bhopal, MP. The Secretary, Departraent pf Tribal Welfare, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, MP. The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Valiabh Bhawan, Bhopa!, MP. Collector, Dist.,Jashpur, CG. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, D.0. P^S. Mantralaya, R.No.77, Ground Floor, Bhopal.MP ^^5CS. .!^a^.i<;i^i^ ^•wf^WMfMVSbw/^&s*^ ti.Sn- -2- (Writ Petitionunder Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) SB: Hon'bleShri •lustice Satish K. Agnihot Present Shri A.N. Bhakta, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey,Govt,Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1,2,3and8. Shri S.K. Beriwal,counselforrespondentNo.4. ShriSachin Singh Rajptfc?counset for respondentsNo. 5, 6, 7&9. •< F?aju ORALORDER (Passedon 20TH April,2007) 1. In this petition, the matter relates to allocation of the peUtioner between Stateof Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh on creatipn of the State of Chhattisgarh. This very issue was considered in batch of matters i.e., Writ Petition No. 445 df2001 (B.R. Godbole Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and others)and other connected matters which has been disposed of ; on 17-4-2007. 2. Learned eounset appearingforthepartjesjointlysubmitthatthematter issquarely covered by the judgment and order dated 17-4-2007 passed by this Court in the case of B.R. Godbole Vs. Municipal Corporatibn, Durg and othersandotherconnectedmatters(supra). 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms and conditions. No orderasto costs. F—! ~~, \ T'':/ : SdA/ .;:.•:;'"'-, i satIsh,K.Agnfliotri 1 {•