- 2 ^p ($.<?e/— ;^3^§ !° r" ;;;?, •• ^ s':'&'^^^., ^L.i^^if IN THE HIGH CQUR3LOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. NO.CseeyK^) 5> 7 1 12007 PETITIONERS /^l.Vishnu Ram, S/o. Punit Ram, aged about 52 years, R/o. Village Gataopar, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ..-••''^'•.M^ "?' \\.'' ^ rL&^u. / 2. Santu, S/o. Samaru, aged about 55 years, R/o. Village Togro, Tehsil \<0<'^/ ./ Abhanpur, District Raipur. (C.G.j A'--"'.^'' ..••''' fc%*i>.'s? ..- ' 3- Manglu, S/o. Nammu, aged about 57 years, R/o. Village Dandesara Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) / 4. Halu, S/o. Itwari , aged about 55 years, R/o. Village Dandesara Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 5. Rama, S/o. Ravi Shankar, aged about 52 years, R/o. Village Kondopara, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 6. Phuleshwari Bai, W/o. Vishnu Ram, aged 50 years, R/o. Village Gataopar, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretajy, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer inChief F'ublic Works Department, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^i» OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF-A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITIONTCERTIQRARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO_JUSTICE IN THE MATTER RESPONDENTS -/' HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'K.E MR. SATISH K. AONIHOTRI. J. Petitkme® WRIT PETmON (S.) N0.571 OF 2007 Vishnu Ram and others versus Respondents : Slate of ChhatU^arh and anolher Present : Mr. Sunil Otwani, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents. ORDER »th (Passed on 29"' Day of January, 2007) Learned counset appearing for the parties jointty submit that the facts and question of taw involved in the present writ peUtion ». are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Yadav and ottiers vs. Sfate ofChhattisgarh and ottiers (Writ Petition No.454 of 2005), dated 4-1-2007. 2. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is atlowed in terms of the decision of ttiis Court in the matter of Ram Prasad Yadav and others vs. Sfate of Chhattisgarh and others (Supra). No.orderastocosts. Qopal Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 'vf^ii^i^aswiaMiet^iSiSscSgBB^S^