H.R.Manhar And Others v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

£NTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P.

NO.S3CL3 /2005 H.R. Manhar, aged about 45 PETITIONERS years, S/o. Shri Nandlal Manhar, Presently working as Superintendent of Police (Telecommunication), ^-^ Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, ^^.- Chhattisgarh Dr.

Sanjeev Shukla, aged about 38 years, S/o. Shri P.L.

Shukla, Presently working as ^y ^ Additional Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh T.

Ekka, aged about years, S/o.

Ramphal Ekka, Presently working as Additional Superintendent of Police, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh Anurag Sharma, aged about 40 years, S/o. Late Dr. A.D.

Sharma, Presently working as Additional Superintendent of Police District Kanker, Chhattisgarh RECE^ED-^OPY ~^.T<?

CLESK to ^ 0. BTLASFUn

5.

B.S.

Dhruv, aged about 41 years, S/o.

Late Shri Garibaram, Presently working as Additjonal Superintendent of Police, Jashpurnagar, District Jashpurnagar, Chhattisgarh

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Du-ector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: The Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Home Affairs, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) ^'-'s 5rr^!^ ::"

" -,,^^ •<\ Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Bhopal, ^:,:-^-...}• is \'", ^ '"• '• ..•..

// l''^'.;--.^%y Madhya Pradesh ^^a:^^^y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTSON OF INDIA ^

•^ ^./ sv^ y NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WPNo. 3303 of 2005 H.R.ManharAnd Others "~ Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

- Respondent For Petitioners For Respondents-State Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate Shri Shashank Thakur, GA forthe State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 19/01/2017 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners pleads no instructions. 2.

Since no other counsel is appearing to press this writ petition nor any representation is made, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Ashu