High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/2232/2003non prosecution

Prahlad Kumar Sangode And Others v. The State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2016-12-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ORDER SHEET WP NO. 2232 of 2003

1. Prahlad Kumar Sangode S/o Shri Ramnath Sangode aged about 32 years R/o DDA Office Kabir Dham, Kawardha, Distt.Kawardha (CG).

2. Prashant Kumar Pandey, aged about 30 years S/o Shri NK Pandey, R/o department of Agriculture Extention, College of Agriculture, Raipur (CG). -----Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, department of Agriculture, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG).

2. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Krishak Nagar, Raipur (CG) through the Registrar

3. Shri V K Patil S/o not known Vice Chancellor, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (CG).

4. Chancellor, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (CG).

5. University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.

6. Dr. Mohd. Akram Khan, Research Associate, Agril. Exetension College of Agriculture, Raipur (CG).

7. Shri Mahendra Kumar Chaturvedi, Junior Scientiest NARP, Directorate of Research, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (CG).

8. Shri Rajesh Kumar Sahu, Training Associate, Krishin Vigyan Kendra, Jagdalpur.

9. Shri Ashish Thakre, LIG-367, Padmanabhpur, Durg (CG). 10.Shri Sushan Kumar Painkra, Junior Scientist, NARP, Shahid Gunadhur College of Agriculture & Research Station Jagdalpur (CG). 11.Ms. Viva Shalini Ekka, Training Associate, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Ambikapur (CG). -----Respondents 09/12/2016 Shri Aditya Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State. On 25.08.2013 this court ordered for issuance of notice to the respondents on payment of PF within three days. However, since then there is default on the part of the

petitioners in not paying PF for issuance of notice to the respondents inspite of fresh notice being issued in the year, 2010.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Shri Tiwari appears on behalf of Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for the petitioners, and submits that he has no instructions from his client.

In view of above statement made by the counsel for the petitioners, this court is left with no other option, but to dismiss the case on default.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Inder