← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1140/2017dismissed

Jitendra Shukla v. Union Of India

2017-10-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1140 of 2017

1. Jitendra Shukla S/o Shri Govind Prasad, Aged about 50 years, R/o Ward No. 7, Ratan Sadan, Mohbhatta Road, Tahsil and Police Station Bemetara, Bemetara, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)

2. Bacchu Mal Virani @ Sonu, S/o Shri Arjun Virani, Aged about 38 years, R/o in front of Police Station, Tahsil and Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Petrolieum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.

2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Through The Managing Director, 17, Jamshed Ji Tata Road, Mumbai 400020

3. The Collector/ District Authority, District Bemetara, (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Superintendent of Police, District Bemetara, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Municipal Council Through The Chief Municipal Officer, Bemetara, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)

6. The Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Bemetara, District Bemetara, (Chhattisgarh)

7. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Bemetara, (Chhattisgarh)

8. The Senior Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Madina Manjil, 2nd Floor, Medical College Road, 129, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

9. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Department No. 1, NHDP-PIU, Public Works Department, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Tridib Bhattacharya, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1 :

Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 to 8 :

Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 5 :

Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board 27/10/17 Heard on I.A. No. 02, application for withdrawal of the writ petition. 2.

Upon due consideration, the I.A. No. 02 is allowed. 3.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to revive if the cause of action arises in future.

4.

The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable and is allowed. 5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition if the cause of action arises in future. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka