Ramkrishna Kulmitra 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.
.••*'I'- .
• ...••''
..^'
^ff-^y^ ^.[%%/-"""
^^^^^-\ ^ PAfieNo..j,:
..-•' e:.^:\ O, ^VN^- IW <6'°~ y 9.^''
VIM 'rant BBGH COOJRT Q»JUIMCATiaBB AT W.P._4LS^-/2005. $& iwraraoiBBR R&UKffifflaiMk KCTUBWRA Retd. A^istant Rrofessor S/o ^uri^;.^ Kulmitta Aged about Years R/o Vfflage sind TahsB Lormi, District Bilaqaw. (C.G.) viaaso® •^- MBsPoiroaaros ( 1.
<WATBOy<S6 UME>TBSCtABSK TlB'oug?!, Secretaiy H^ier Education, D,K. S. Bhavan.
MgButralaya, Raipur. (C-G.jl 0'^'
.>^0 ^'y DBPAmifflENT OP HIGHER EDUCATION, DirectorateSdeace Col^e ft-eiiiiws, Utuversi^r Road Raipur, (C.G.) ^€ /3.
Bhr. YWESM. aWARTI Additionai Director, ffi^ier Education, Directorate-Sdence Cotlege Prevaises, Usdwtsaty Road Raipur, (C.G.) /^?IS^\ / "/ v.
(*i^^.v"fii^i -/4. WaaiCmU*, GaTOraiaent.
Bhanupx^tapdeo P.G.
College, KaniGer. EHstt. Kariter, (C.G.) W» or CtaiBTITtnraOW 0» B(IHA IBQR BBWAKCB <W A mffi&j Tlie abose nan»d begs to subnat as uader: - 1.
As per the cause titte.
a.
As per (he cause titte.
3.
OPTJfflB ^.{A y- ^ ^WSA ^•.StqptpsrthtoEBCKi.BeipSffr";^ tTWSsss^'S£lWS^^BSKW^^S^S!7VSS}
^ ?V^J^^^ ^ ^u HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Writ Petition No. 6130 of 2005 PETITIONER Ramkrishna Kulmitra
Versus
RESPQNDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others WR]lI'!FtTl|;l8'rUNDERARTICLE 226/2tyI)F..n£CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ife»'stfi)'IB^ ce :
Shri Prakash'';l3^/iB.,®||3y!Ee'TorthePetitioner. wl"
Shri Shashankflll^ltBlliyi^rnmentAdvocate forthe State. i&s )RDER Vl 2.2014) y^it^""^^^^-l NAVIN SINHA. ACTlNjC^SI.l.
1.
Heard Learned the Petitioner and the State.
2.
Notwithstanding the passage of over 1 1A years no application has been filed for substituting the deceased-Petitioner by his legal heirs. Even otherwise the challenge is to an order passed in 1989 in a writ petition instituted in 2005 after superahnuation in 2004. 3.
The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous by reason ofthe death ofthe original Petitioner. ACTING%<HIEF JUSTICE sunita i !"° I i n"^! [-f-} lil11S!!