AW A? E“ E9“ '= writ Petitisn mimé c 2-3-35. rJ MLYsgesh Pandey, ccunsei far the petmoner. MrAkhii Agrawai, Pane? Lawyer for the respcndentsfState. (3“: Haw'me Mr. TP. $harma, JJ §§BER ("E 4-1. 2-201 1) inmady' the pennorer ‘ms r ed th w.'£i petitisn under Amcie 6i22? af tne C} erminaticn of ie’ase. ac: r :atmg is *Mrned ccu sei far the petitioner wbmits that during pendency sf the “Amer Inc reepondenis nave canceiied :..e iease vide erder dated i9 .u JJOD Learned counsei rurther submits that he seeks te withdrew this ‘v'rt petmen m me .i t: e tne orue. a ed '- 7 ”06% "awed b Ceurt r WPJ‘teud 5:2{1‘5 in i'enti'ei matter with :iberty te apereacr tie reependenteeutnerities. U) Acccr ineiy, the writ p titien is dismissed a witnd v: With he eferesard iiberty. if apprepri tera piieetion is iiiee' befcre the respendente-euthoritiee T! i the Eight ef the er‘der dated 4.129 , .. .. the esyome'i s authorities are rem'ired t ceneider the eppiicatien ef the petitiener in the lg t of the e eer .P.iiei52?$m5 i . identicai case. i'e Greer e to Mei\’\ Sd/_ IP- Shanna Judge cnstiiuticn cf india against the G vernment fm preventmg ‘hvm fwm :iiega r1- hca \. 22 Pa‘raore. Ashai‘ Kumar Nm Iuni 30:1 c“ Manakram Nmchaiam agaé abeut A5 y esudem 0‘ T‘ida bawp, wstnaz Raipur {QC} Versus Raspandents State 0f unna': sga'i‘ ‘ uaugu 5 ecreiafy. Reveme Departmem-‘ D KEhawan, .mipu. kc u) 2 Cciiectcn Rmpm 3. akb :ansnua., Tuda i evvra Lil’stm‘ Ramur. @Jrii Petit .mer Amme 2 $227 a? the Ccnsii‘auiion cf india}