← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPPIL/74/2014withdrawn

Dhaneshwar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2015-08-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Inder Singh Uboweja2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP PIL No. 74 of 2014 • Dhaneshwar Verma, Son of late Ashok Kumar Verma, aged about 24 years, resident of village Mohda, Police Station Dharsiva, District Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Raipur Head Post Office Raipur, Police and Revenue District Raipur (C.G.)

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Labour and Industrial Department Raipur, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Raipur, Head Post Office Raipur, Police and Revenue District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Tilda, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.)

5. Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

6. Director, Chhattisgarh Paryavarna Sanrakshan Mandal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

7. Gram Panchayat Mohda, Through Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Mohda, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.)

8. M/s. Gopal Sapanz and Power Private Limited Mohda, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For petitioner :

Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate For State and its authorities:

Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Hon'ble Shri Justice Inder Singh Uboweja Order On Board By P. Diwaker, J .

11/08/2015 Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a compliance report has been submitted by the State Counsel stating therein that on 22.06.2015, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has passed the order declaring the resolution No.16, dated 20.05.2008 and resolution No. 04 dated 24.07.2009 passed by the Gram Panchayat Mohda to be contrary

to law and unconstitutional.

2.

In view of the subsequent development and the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has become infructuous, and therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw this petition. 3.

Not opposed by the counsel for the respondents. 4.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) (I.S.Uboweja) Anjani Judge Judge