Jagannath Pakhale v. The State Of M.P.And ORS.

o ^ljf ^<r'!;i^t.&

IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATnSGARH ATBILASPUR (CG)

WRIT PETITION N0.

((-; zo /2005 PETITIONER Jagannath Pakhale, aged about 48 years, son of Shri Baludas Pakhale, Jabdapara, Tahsil and District Bilsapur (Chhattisgarh)

VERSUS

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

« ^ RESPONDENTS (^l The State of Chhattisgarh - through the Secretary, Department of Comnierce 8& Industries, D.K.S.

Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) tTMOS LT.O-J'

/^^a^ y ^--\ il ^ L--^ ^fM^ iybv i^^^3^ II ^^•:^f/ '^^^:y 3.

The Union of India, through ~ the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, New Dehli.

4.

Madhya Pradesh Textiles Corporation, Bhopal, through ~ Its Authorized signo.tory, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) "^^^^•'-..--•-~'

^ ^J<^ -^•^'^ '%^£1 '^T)^ / 5.

State Industrial Development Corporation, Raipur, through - Maiiaging Director, / WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,

NAFR HLGU^QURT OF CHHATTSSGARH. BELASPUR WPNo.1752 Of 2005 Panch Ram Dewangan WPNo.1302 Of 2006 Khem La! Dewangan WPNo-6602 Of 2005 Ajay Kumar Thawait ""- Petitioner WPNo.1620 Of 2005 Jagannath Pakhate

v ^ ^ :'^/ '"^s^ --Respondent ^ WPNo.1751 Of 2005 Deep Chand "" Respondent WPNo.1711 Of 2005 Dukhi Ram Yadav WP No. 3396 Of 2005 Mahetar Lal The State ofMadhya Pradesh & Ors.

~" Respondent WP No. 3292 Of 2005

^•^^^^ '-^ ^ ^'

^ s •.«^^a Gayaram Gadhewal "~ Petitioner WPNo. 3304 Of 2005 Hem Lal Dewangan ~~ Petitioner -Respondent WPNo. 797 Of 2006 YogeshChandra Dewangan None Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Govt. Adv. Shri Malay Shrivastava, Shri Gagan Tiwari, Shri N.K. Vyas & Shri Ayaz Naved, Advocates For Petitioners For respective Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board

f€:

%^,.^.

'w~^^\^ ^^^^ 21/03/2016 t 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 todismiss the petitions for want of prosecution. 3) Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed for want of prosecution.

-_- -__ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge