Dr.S.K.Khare v. State And ORS.

-yr--- l^ ^) ^^ ^

IN THE M.P.

ADM.INJSTRATJVE IRJ.BUNAL^. jA.BA.ytUB O.A.NO. l/l5& OF DR.

SUDI-tlR KUMAR KHARE %on o-F L^te Bhyani Bhadur Khar©y ag ed 44 yea r 5 r A^ 5 i % tan t Home o Medical O-fficery Goveryin'ten'l Horrieo Di5pcen%ary Raipur r^sident of G/2/19y E:AC C o l on y, Ra i pu r Tah % i1 and Dxstri ct Rai pur APPLICANT VERSUS• 'l.

GOVERNMFNT OF MADHYA PRADESH •throiigh M'

Y Secre'laryy Public Heal'lh and Fam 1.1y U^1far e Departrnen'l y Vallabh Bhavan y E^hopal s.

THE DJ.RE.CTOR OF INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE AND HQMEQPATHY, Madhya P r ad ^ % h y B h o pa 1 3.

DR.

ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA, Govtu Horneo Di % pen^ary y Jai'Lhari Di5'lt« Sahdol.

4.

DR» SHARAT KUMAR JAJ.N, Gov'l u Homeo Di 5 pensary y Pathrota Di^tt..

Hoshangabad « DR .

DALCI-tAND J AIN , Govt,» Homeo Diy»pen<sary Dinara D i 5 11 n Gwa1i o r 5.

6, DR.

(faMT.) JYOTIRANI CHAURASIA y Govt» Homeo Dispensary?

Naryalkheda <Ga% Rahat) Dxstfcn Bhopal DR.

SHUSHIL KUMAR TIUARIy Go v t n Home o D i 5 pen %a r y y Kundam y D 1 % 11 n J a ba 1 pu r« DR.

ARB11MDRA E3HARMA, Govt < Homeo Di ^ p9n<:>ary y Surguja Di%tt» Surguja 8.

DR.

SURENDRA KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, Go v •I.

Horne o D i ^ j::» en ^ a i'" y y K o nd a D i 51 fc ..

Durg

-2- (<"

1.

10.

DR» ASHOK PRAKASH SJ.NGH, Go v 'l ^ Ho en'io D i % pen <:>a r y attached to Govtn Hame o pa t h y C o 11 €A g e y Bhopalu -1-1.

DR.

OMPRAKASH GUPTA, Go v t n Hoi'fte o D i 5 pen s a r y y Pichor Distt.

Shivpuri -IS.

DRn (SMT) AIYASHA KHATOON, Go v -l,.

Home a Dispensary Tila Jamapurr Bhapal Dis'ltn Bhopal •i3.

DR.

SHIVENDRA MI.SHRA, Govta Horneopathy Hospi'lal atfcached fco M^dical College., Bhapal RE8PONDENTS DETA1LS QF APPLICATT.QM

/(^ NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WPSNo.1321 of 2005 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Khare - Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors.

"" Respondent For Petitioner For RespondenVState None Shri Majid Ali, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra OrderOn Board 09/03/2016 1) The matter was passed over once in absence of any representation on behalf of the petitiotier.

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

2) In the circumstances, there is no other option left with the Court, but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. 3) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge h