Sumit Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
/' A THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATnSGARH W.P. N0.
3>fc<2 ^- 12006 -..•f'^^ ^" -/•'Sumit Kumar S/o. Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Agad about yeare, R/o.
Viilage Kunkuri, "
sf ^ ...•/)"'/'^:'''\.--'* Vikaskhand, Batauti, Tahsil Sitapur, Distt. Surgu}; iv>\.--;'r ^•••"'
.•••"'
-'•>*o'..^\'v..-'"'' ..-••"'
3-:":^<'^-"""
^•^;i^-""
><;?"'-c<^'p>'l.-""
^A.--"'
A&y RESPONDENTS (C.G.)
VERSUS
State ofChhatttsgarti Ttirough Secretary, Department of Panctiayat, Gramin Vikas Devetopment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manfralaya, Raipur (C.G.) M The Coitector, Ambiltapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ?^> ,<..c^;^^ S>S~'(-.^<L"6-''
Ths Sub Dh/isional Offieer (Revenue) Sitapur, District Surguja (C.<3.) The Chtef Executive OfRcer, Janpad Panchayat Batault, Dtetrfct Surguja (C.G.) Dharam Prasad, S/o. Harihar Prasad, Rfo.
Vitlage Birimlcela, Tahsil Sttapur, Dlstrfct Suiguja (C.G.) RajltumarSonwami, S/o. Lotmath, Presentty working as Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Birimketa Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) y Ramadhar S/o.
Ram Prasad, Presentty working as Panch of Gram Psnehayat ^,\ ^'^^-^s~/ "^^y Birimteta Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguia (C.G.5
^5 ^ •?i i:l f}/^ KadaKram S/o. Govind, Presentty woflting as Gram Sahayak, Gram Panehayat Binmtela Tahsil Sitapur, District Suiguja ^ (C.G.) ?] Bodhanram S/o. Gopu, Member of setectisn eommittee of Samvida Shikshak Grade-0), Rfo. Stepur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.) WRtT PETmON UNDER ART1CLE 22^/227 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF INOtA
^^ ^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SB.-HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Writ Petition No. 3664 of 2005 PETITK)NER Sumit Kumar •Versus ^ State of Chhattisgarh and others RESPONDENTS ^.
<"
WRIllFlgTiritffsl UNDERARTICLE 2SWQ^'WE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA v/'^.
earance :
S-'gSyocate for the Petitioner Shri Vaibhav Shri Shashank, Shri Akhilesh Kkff?Eg||iBi8g|Fte for Respondent 4. bgfflli^rnmentAdvocate for the State.
IQRDER ^-yyf^ffS^0^4) NAVIN SINHA, ACTl Ba|»By <1^^)cj 5pT^ 1.
Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2.
The initial appointment being for one year, 2003-2004 and that period having expired long back, the interim order granted has become infructuous.
3.
All other issues including any subsequent developments are left open for consideration at a later stage, if necessary. 4.
-The Writ Petition is disposed.
Sd/- Acting ChiefJustice sunita