o .- s^oei- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR writ petition no. /2004 y" PETITIONER:- t 1) Umesh Chandra Mihsra, Aged about 40 years^Mead constable District Crime Record Beaurio Behind Superintendent ofPolice Station Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) ^0< •" f'^^^ .^e^ \'I' ^^•^.... • ^y..., 'y ^^•^- ^ v<.- <<<;» ^~<i c^^-^ ^•$''; ,, ^; , 2) Dinesh Singh , S/o Sakhiram Chandra i^.Vt*****°**I<a.t^ ^^'"'Q^y^'' Singh Aged 45 years Head Constable •^^^1'" No- 36° p's- Dantewada Dis1 V7V. ,0^ .•;°-' ^ .->• .c^:.^ ^' ^ .A' A ^c\j ^- |.i»CT No. 360 P.S. Dantewada Distt.- Dantewada. 3) Lalman Verma, S/o Samaylal Verma Aged 42 years, Constabl no. 273 P.8.- Dantewada Distt- Dantewada 4) Nagendra Tiwari, S/o Ram dev Tiwari Aged 35 years, Constable no. 558 Police line Dantewada, Distt-Dantewada 5) BrijBhan Patel S/o Yagh Sharan Patel Aged Slyears Constable no. 653 P.S. Dantewada Distt- Dantewada 6) Rajmani Verma S/o Shyamlal Verma Aged 26 years Constable no. 04 P.S. Muraimunda Distt- Dantewada 7) Sakhan Cole S/o Bhupendra Prasad Cole, Aged about 32 years Constable no. 412 P.S. Katekalyan Distt-Dantewad. /PI^ ^^^^•t 8) TularamJatavagedabout38 years Head Constable no. 745 P.S. Errabor Distt- Dantewada 9) Vinod Mihsra S/o Obho Mishra aged 34 years Head Constable no. 227 P.S. P.S. Dandewada Distt- Dantewada 10)TanayTiwari agedabout 37 Constable no. 889 P.S. Dantewada Distt- Dantewada. 11) Amn Dewadi S/o Motilal Dewadi aged about 32 years Constable no.619 P.S. Geedam Distt- Dantewada 12) Bhagwan Das aged about 54 years Constable no. 239 P.S. Dantewada Distt- Dantewada. 13) Rajesh Pandey S/o Shri Durga Prashad Pandey, aged 32 years Head Constable no. 95 P.S. Barsoor Distt- Dantewada 14) Ved vyas Singh S/o Shri Chandra Bhan Singh aged 3^ years Constable no. 584 P.S. Geedam Distt-Dantewada 15) Brajnarayan Tiwari ;S/o Lalta Prasad Tiwari aged 35 years Gonstable no. 23 , P.S. Geedam Distt- Dantewada 16) Davendra Yadav S/o Phoolan Slngh Yadav aged 31 years Constable no.509 P.S. Geedam Distt- Dantewada g-— RESPONDENTS:^ ^) 17) Dinesh Deshmukh S/o Shri Nehm lal Deshmukh aged 34 years. Constable no. 521 P.S. Geedam Distt- Dantewada. VERSUS 1) UnionofIndia,ThroughSecretary Public Grievances & Personal Affair Govemment oflndia.l f ^, 2) State ofChhattisgarh Through Secretary Home(Police) Department Raipur (C.G.) 3) State ofMadhya Pradesh Through Secretary Home (police) Department Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 4) SuperintendenfofPoliceDantewada ??$'(/-• PaBrtecy^ <c^.^ ^ 5) Director General ofPolice , Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. l@f XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f<rli<=h 3^?T 9b^i<^ ^f^a ^I^CII -ysr ^||^||<^<4, ^Tll^^Ko, f^^lj^y 3TT^?T '^=ra? .y;^.MO:.../7^^z/^ 'fq^I' ^h^ich ^ 2&0 ^TI^T'^IT^R ^Tftn 09.07.a004 tbe fdr On a raention beiag niade, ShriY.C.Shamia, eoiinsel Shri S.K. Beriwal, Seniof India/respondent no.l on advaac^ Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Depu1|y Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the Statjs. I.A. No. 4247/2004for Heard, Counsel for fhe petitioners aUocation of petitioners, He fiirfhjer i.e., W.P.No.578/2004 (Balendra Union of India and others) order^ on 17.12.2003. He also 18.6.2004 passed in W.P. 1560/^ ofhers -vs- Union of India and ofh|er simLUar order inay be passed in Leamed counsel for fhe on fhe statement of coiinsel for sicailar orders inay be passed. Haviag considered the fact^ niaterial on record and considerinfe for the petitioner at fhe Bar aadj cited above and further fhe legal Authorities ia not reUevmg fhe prodzajced (fh|ers) thib chl<4fd41'1 'RT^ff'? 1^1 Tf^$R ^3Tf^P:[3T[^l niatter is taken up. the petitioners. Panel Lawver for Union of copy. Advocate General wititi Akhil urgejat hearing is aUowed, ^ubxnits fhat fhe inatter relates to subiaits fhat ia siGadlar niatter Bhekhar Mishra aad ofhers -vs- have been passed by fhis Court a copy of the order dated ^004 (Jitendra Singh Tomiar and Leamed counsel prays fhat case also. subxnitted fhat relyiag jfhe petitioner niade at fhe Bar, resjpondents ao^d circunistaaces of fhe case, fhe statenient inade by counsel ia view of the judgnient/orders iposition, fhe action of the State lers cannot be siistaiaed and pe1{ltion< [Tfr^tn^' XI-HC-22 '3~'oST ^IPTT^T, ^Ti1^t4l<o, I^^ll^y 3H^T T^^ ^imcf[T ^hHlch 'M 200 "^R^T' 'STI^T'^T ^i<=h ^sni^T 5^^icti <i^a ^TI^T "^ITW^f^T -2 <sbl^(d41r1 ^nWTf ^ 1^2t <Rl^l< '^3:rf^H3TT^T ^^\/ ttie petitioners are entiUed for| directed to reUeve fhe petitioners) production of a copy of fhis orde4 Accordiagly, fhis petition Consequently, M.W.P.1603{ C.C. as per rules, rcUevitig, The respondeuts are wifhia 15 days froni fhe date of s1|aads disposed of. 2004 also stands disposed of. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge