← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/3292/2005dismissed

Gayaram Gadhewal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

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

\ ^ ev *F.F1^;].H IfclM^N

IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG)

WRITPJCTITION N0.

QW^ /2005 / Gayaram Gadhewal, aged about years, son of Shri Kanhaiyalal Gadhewal, resident of village Lokhandi, PO Mangla^ Tah.

Takhatpur, Distt.

BUaspur (C.G.) PETITIONER

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS ^]/ < ^ €f^ ,<2.-..fVi.

^ r^ y ^ iA^- ^iF /^ /y5v / ^ / .«* The State of Madhya Pradesh - through - the Secretary, Madhya Pradesh States Reorganization, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

The State of Chhattisgarh - through - the Secretary^ Deparfanaent of Conamerce & Industries, D.K.S.

Bha^yan, Raipur (Chhatlisgarh) ^ 2.

.<^' / ^•'^' / <>''^>/ ^- The Union of India, tihirough - Ae Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, New DehU.

Madhya Pradesh Textiles Corporation, Bhopal, through - Its Authorized signatory, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) 4.

State Industrial Developnient Corporation, Raipur, ttirough - Managing Director, / 5.

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR c WPNo.1752 Of 2005 Panch Ram Dewangan - WP No. 1302 Of 2006 Khem t-a! Dewangan The State of Madhya Pradesh & Qrs.

- »?• WPNo.66020f2005 Ajay Kumar Thawait "" Petitioner c.

-m Respondent WPNo. 1620 Of 2005 Jagannath Pakhale -

-\^ '/.

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

^'

Gayaram Gadhewal WP No. 3304 Of 2005 Hem Lal Dewangan petitioner WP No.797 Of 2006 Yogesh Chandra Dewangan • The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

-- 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 OrderOn Board

-D 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 teft with the Court, but to dismiss the petitions for want of prosecution. 3) Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed for want of prosecution.

Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge t\ r