Khem Lal Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

r.

r '^....^- •"S'46.^''

^-•^ B£iia *••( ^,s-"

IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG)

WRIT PETITION N0.

f3o2_/2006 PETITIONER ^ Khemlal Dewangan, aged about 45 years, son of Shrti Phool Sai Dewangan, resident of Bilaigarh, Talab Road, Bilaigarh, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh)

VERSUS

1.

The State of Madhya Pradesh - RESPONDENTS through - the Secretary, Madhya pr^desh States Reorganization, ^tipRa.l, M8.dbya Pradesh.

ftie §tsft (?f C^liattisgarh -.

through - the Secretaiy, L--( .l^^f'SSy -^°.*ft^y%s*2^'

Departlnent of Commerce & Industries, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur sas'> sw'..!fy>'

Ssy.^'"'"

'^y'

(Chhattisgarh) '3.

The Union of India, through - Ifae <^ Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, New Dehli.

y.f^ ^ %• ^f^.

^^ ^^.c ^'y r^ <y .0 •v^fS' w ^ ^/s?:ffl^n:'^ l'6^yi"^^ Madhya Pradesh Textiles Corporation, Bhopal, through - Its Authorized signatory, Bhopal s':

(Madhya Pradesh) / 5.

State Industrial Development Corporation, Raipur, through - Managing Director, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WPNo.1752 Of 2005 Panch Ram Dewangan WP N0. 1302 Of 2006 Khem Lal Dewangan The State of Madhya Praclesh & prs.

WRNo. 6602 Of 2005 Ajay Kumar Thawait WP No. 1620 Of2005 Jagannath Pakhale -

^'^.fai», ''*• ,':;'rf"~~"'ia1 '^ "•\ li •^fcus?'.

::!

^i '

'^ S'

t^<^-'

WP No. 1751 Of2005 Deep Chand WPNo.1711 Of 2005 Dukhi Ram Yadav WP No.3396 Of 2005 Mahetar Lal WP No.3292 Of 2005

'!is-»'?'.ft''

Gayaram Gadhewal WPNo. 3304 Of 2005 Hem Lal Dewangan WPNo. 797 Of 2006 Yogesh Chandra Dewangan For Petitioners For respective None Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Govt. Adv. Shri Malay Shrivastava, Shri Gagan Tiwari, Shri N.K. Vyas & Shri Ayaz Naved, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board

21/03/2016 1) The matters were passed over once in absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioners.

No one appears for the petitioners even in the second call.

2) In the circumstances, there is no~ other option left with the Court, but to dismiss the petitions for want of prosecLftion. 3) Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed for want of prosecution.

,,^-r ^shra prasna^d9e