.ov 0< •^ IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR Writ Petition No^gSX./2004 ^. PETITIONER Shiv Ram Markain^ ^•••^ .^°>' ^'^60 <'^^' ..••• '<?^>" ^' BESPQNDENTS ^SSh. 1. ^^... ° ^ -^ 6 S/o Late Shri Dhaai Ram, ^^<\^<Q aged about 44 year^, workiag as ',-^< >'' L.D.T. at Primary Schooly Khetarpaly Keshkal, Uttar Baster, R/o Vfflage- Beeraupurp Po%t ~ Devl Navgaon^ Tahsal ~ Narharpur, Kaiiker (C.G.). -Veresss- State of Clihattisgarh^ Through. the Seeretary Adim. Jaiti Tatha Anuauchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Mautralaya^ Raipur (C.G.). 2. Directory Adim Jati Tatha Amiszichit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Raipur (C.G.). 3. CoUector (Adivashi Vikas Shaldia) J^dalpur (C.G.). Assistaiit Director, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Collectorate Biiildiog, Jagdalpur (Baster) (C.G.). 2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE ^IATURE OF 3UANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC.OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. 1 •;:'&t<a^w^;::: XI-HC.22 R-iicb aiffich^ifid ^' ^"- ^^' ^^'<j|]l<4lgt|^^11 T%t[^m^ ra<^i \'q^^^.^%-^;^ "(A/^^ <^^<^^V ••^-200^ ^.\'' 20/9/2004 he^rin; .Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Shn V.V.S, Murthy.Dy.Ai AppUcatipn for urgent Heard. CounseF &r the petitione| vide order dated 30-6-2003, Anr| of the Lok Sabha and the Vldhal he has also made the.' repres^ concerned. It is also submittedj not yefc been cancelled. It is s| No. 1465/04^ "orders have been passed in this case also, -/ State counsel does not dis Having considered the ia^ fee fact that tKe elections to th€ heen held and further the fact tli yet cancelled thbn there is no that the petitioner would be weeks from the <3ate of prodyctioi Wifh this observa.tion^ this Consequently, M.W.P. No. disposed of> . C.C.as per.rules. C4unsel <=hNKrt4tri ^tWff'? |^^> ^T^IT X^OTQTit^ for the petitloner. G. with Shri Akhil Agrawal, P. L. for the State. 'ingisalloweid. . ' submitted that the petitioner was transferred 3xure~ P/l, butTias notbeen relieved becatise Sabha elections; It te further submitted that |nfations for his relieving tp the authorities tthat ffie transfer order is still m force and has (ubmitted that ih similar matter bearing W.P. >assed. He p3-ays that similar Qrderajnay be Ipyte the fa.ct | / |>ts and circumstances, material on record and Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha have already |at as the transfer order qf the petitioner is not inj notTelie^ing thc.petifioi^er^ it is directed |by the a^ithorities concemed within 3 ofcopyoftKis order before them. petitionds disposed of. .|2521 /20Q4 arid I.A.No,6208/2004, also stand realson relieved Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ,[^.^^