High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/1751/2005dismissed

Deep Chand v. State Of M.P.And Others

2016-03-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra5 pages

!^,S^!i "SINteLt lifcW !N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION N0. l^"] /2005 Deepeiiand, aged about 43 years, son w &fsi'i Gosayee Ram Dewangan, resident of Chingrajpara, Laxmi Chowk, SECL, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgafh)

VERSUS

The State of Madhya Pradesh - through - the Secretary, Madhya Pradesh States Reorganization, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

The State of Chhattisgarh - through - the Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^/<^/ /y/§< The Union of India, through - the Secretary, Ministry of Pereonnel, New Dehli.

^0"^'..

w^ ^'

Madhya Pradesh Textiles Corporation, Bhopal, through - fts Authon'zetf signatory, Bhopat (Madhya Pradesh) State Indusirial Devetopment Corporation, Raipur, through - Managing Director, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER ____ --- - - ---

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