Petitioner withdrew contest on merits in a writ petition regarding representation consideration under Articles 226 and 227.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR
| Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Single Bench: |
|---|
| WP (S). No.2968I2G03 |
| Peiitioner Panna Lal Sahu, Sic Shri Ramsahai Sahu, aged about 43 years, Occupation-Service, Rio Kailashpur, Post Devnagar, Tahsil-Surajpur, District-Sarguja (CG) |
| Versus |
| State of Chhat'tisgarh Through: The Secretary & Ministry of Genera! Administration Department. D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG) Respondents |
| 2. The Secretary of Tribal & S.T. Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 3. The Assistant Commissioner & S.T. Deveiopment r ' Department, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (CG) Biock Education Officer, Ramanujnagar. Tahsii-Surajpur, District—Sarguja (CG) |
| Writ Petition under Articie 225i227 of the Constitution of india |
| Present: Ms. Sudha Agarwai, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the . State/respondents. |
ORAL ORDER (Passedon2"aJuly,2008)
Ms. Sudha Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to contest this matter on merits at this stage.
(2) The respondent authorities may be directed to consider the petitioner‘srepresentationdated28.3.2008inaccordancewithlawon its merits. \
egntd»»Q
(3) Shri Y.S. Thakur. iearned Deputy Advocate General for the state/respondents submits that there is no reason as to why this representation may not be considered and appropriate orders may not be passed in accordance with iaw. He further submits that the same petition shaii be considered and decided within a period of two weeks in accordance with law on itsown merits from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(4) in. view of the above submission made by the learned Deputy Advocate Genera! for the State, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives in this matter.
(5) Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
“‘"
Sd/-
Satish K. Agnihotri
:
Judge
n)’w
Panna Lal Sahu
State of Chhattisgarh
Satish K. Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
