c^~ f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. OF 2010 0,u PETmONER ^0""^' ^^ ^s^""" b<^^' ^y^ ^' ^v ' ^^••"" ^' RESPONDENTS 1. Y. B. Sagar S/o Lt. Shri M. S. Sagar Aged about - 36 years 9^ R/o- Village- Narsingpur, Post- Jagdishpur, Thana- Basna District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 493555 VERSUS l.r Menno Christian Education Society .Prabandh Samiti, Through its Secretary Jagdishpur, Thana, Basna District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 493555 ^tfl+e. oP C bhcrf+isa^ ^,-^o^ ~ 2. '"'District Education Officer District- Mahasamund(C.G.) 493445 oF C. ^^a-t-^s a^'81'. ^oroug^ - 3. Block Education Officer, <S Basna 4 District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 493554 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- ^ .9^ ^ y^ ;^ -ife^®^;! ^ ^SS^-^ j Y^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6184 OF 2010 PETITIONER Y.B. Sagar RESPQNDENTS Versus Menno Christian Education Society & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Kishore Narayan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Roshan Dubey, Advocate forthe respondent No.1. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 20th day of January, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that so far as relief clause (1) is concerned, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 3. With regard to relief clauses (2) & (3) are concerned, which, it appears, have nothing to do with the first substantive relief, therefore, the same cannot be considered in this petition, as clubbing of 3 different cause of actions are not at all permissible in the eye of law. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in respect of the prayer as contained in relief clauses (2) & (3), the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition seeking redressal of the grievances afresh. 5. In view of foregoing, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of relief clauses (2) & (3) reserving tiberty to the petitiooer to file a fresh petition, if so advised. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge