Shree Mahamaya Construction And Transport, v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Review Petition No. 86 of 2019 {Arising out of Order dated 25.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 685 of 2019 by the learned Division Bench} Shree Mahamaya Construction And Transport, Having Its Office At Old Dhamtari Road, Clay Castle Colony, Dunda, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through - Its Proprietor Smt. Nalini Mishra D/o Shri Kedar Nath Mishra, Aged About 35 Years, R/o A/50 Clay Castle Colony, Besides Abiba Green City, Old Dhamtarai Road, Dunda, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director, Urban Administration And Development Directorate, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kumhari, District - Durg Chhattisgarh.

5. President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

6. Sri Pankaj Sharma Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh

7. Swapnil Upadhyay President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Applicant : None For State/Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Shri Vaibhav Kartikey Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 to 7 : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 04/07/2019 1.

The review petitioner seeks review of the verdict passed by this Court on 25.02.2019 in Writ Petition (C) No. 685 of 2019 whereby interference was declined and the writ petition challenging the termination of the contract was dismissed.

2.

The matter was listed before this Court yesterday, but there was no representation on behalf of the review petitioner. Hence, it was thought appropriate to give one more chance to the review petitioner and the matter was adjourned to be listed today. Same is the position today as well. There is nobody to represent the review petitioner. It appears that he has lost interest in the cause of action.

3.

In view of the above, the review petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- Sd/- ( P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Amit