^ ^^ ^@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S.) No. f^j-O^j /2011 PETITIONERS 1. fW o .i<<7 /^y sc «y" ^. .?' ^' Satya Dev Jaiswal aged about 37 years, S/o Harikrishan Prasad Jaiswal, R/o Village and Post Kasra, Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Koriya Ashok Shriwas, S/o Late.Mathura Prasad Shrivas;R/o Village Targawan, Post Kasra, Thana Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya Ashok Kumar Thakur, aged about 35 years, S/o Prabhu Hajam R/o Churcha Colliery Distt. Koriya Ainarjeet Singh Aged about 29 yeas, S/o Sadan Rara, R/o Bangla Dafai, Chirmiri, Distt. Koriya Dharamjeet Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o Sadan Ram.R/o Bangla Dafai, Chirmiri, Distt. Koriya RESPONDENTS 1. w •\-J- /" 2. 3. 4. 5. The State of Chhattisgarh through its Siecretary, Ministry of Health and Family welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur The Collector, Koriya Chief Medial and Health Officer, Baikunthpur, Distt Koriya The District Malaria Officer, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya The State Programma Officer Malaria, Raipur The District Malaria Officer, Distt. Sarguja. Ambikapur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND OF INDIA iH BS ^'y^\ rf'.,^'-^ a'. ^^J^.^'^ '%2?^ "••€'^^\ '•Efsa!;s-< ,Y\ Gov/ri HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S).N0.1704 OF 201 1 PETITiONERS Satya Dev Jaiswal & Others Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constituljon of tndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. 3. 5. (Passed on this 30th day of March, 2011) Heard learned counsel for the oarties. Leamed counsel apnearina for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed writ petition (S) No.4577 of 2008 (AJay Singh & ofters v. SiSate of Chhattsgaiti & Ottfeiv) and writ petition (S) No.5106 of 2008 (Staya Dev Jaiswal & others v. State of ChhaWsgarh & Ottwrs) eariier seeking the same relief, as sought for in this petition. The said petitions were withdrawn by order dated 21-8-2008 & 12-9-2008 reserving liberty to the petitioners to make a reoresentation to the suthorities. AccQrding to the learned counsei appearing for the petitioners the representations have not been considered and decided tiil date. Thus, this petition for the same relief. On oerusai of the eariier orders, it apoears that no iiberty was granted to the petitioners to fiie a fresh petition for the same reiief and. as such. this petition is not maintainable. As an upshot, the writ petition is tiabte to be and is herebv dismissed atthe motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge G'rii;:"1