t ,r.ido IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION NO.?VAS^''^/2005 PETITIONER ^ Shushma ghul<la D/pofShri Balkaran Shukla, dged about 26 years, Resident of Village Bha^rav, Tahsil Malrwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ .<.^''/ \ <55<^SP-' ^••'''f<^'v .-••' .^^•"fi'^, ••" <3'^..'^ ?^S,'.. •'' •?-\0~"' ..•••'^-<-'\0»' S.W' ^-~ / ^r^£s>' 'esS'^ ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, : ThrQugh: fThe Secretary, F iDegarfment i of Panchayat, Mantralaya, D.K^S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). 1 . . ; / 2. Janpad Panchayat Marwahi, Through: The Chief Executive Officer, Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ^3. TheAdditional Collector, Pendra 1 „.: Roajsl(| District Bilaspyr (C.G.). ;^:|P:lili.iJ:'. :i;: ! .!: </4. The Distcict Education .Officer, 1 . i EdupationjDistrict Bfl|spur (C.G.). ]; : , .,.; .. . t • -\ yS. The Zilai Panch^at Bilaspur, Through: The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bilaspur (C.G.). ^ ^: __ ___^__._ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA. 1950 FOR ISSUANlGE; igFliWRH" IN THENATURE OF CO?T CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC; ANb F0R APPROPRIATE QRDER/ORDERS. DIRECTION/DIRECTIIONS. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5455 of 2005 Petitioner Sushma Shukla Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition under Ardcle 226/227 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hontile Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri P. P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. O R D ER (oral) ( Passed on this 9U1 day of March, 2010 ) 1. 2. 3. Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the averments made by the respondents/State in para 6 of the retum filed in W.P. No. 5414/2005 (Vinod Kumar RaiVs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 others), the relief sought for in this writ petitlon has already been granted. Thus, nothing remains for adjudication. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State does not controvert the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order asto costs. SdA SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Thalnir