Shreyash Selarka v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No.1654 of 2016 • Shreyash Selarka S/o Krishna Kumar Selarka, Aged About 36 Years R/o Shanta Jamuna Heritage, Magarpara, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Mandir Hasod, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Supervisory Authority, (District Magistrate/collector), Under The Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Ragopchar Sambandhi Sthapanye Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010, Collectorate, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Through- The Commissioner, Bilaspur, Municipal Corporation, Corporation Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Kalyani Hospital, Through- Its Proprietor, Dr. Preena Shukla, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

6. Dr. Preena Shukla, W/o Shri H. K. Shukla, Aged About 36 Years R/o Siddhi Vinayak Heritage, Rajendra Nagar, Police Station- Civil Lines, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri S. C. Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.1, 2 & 4:

Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 :

Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate For Respondent No.5 & 6:

Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate S.B. :

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 13/04/2017 Heard on I.A.No.2, an application for withdrawal of vakalatnama.

2.

Upon due consideration, the application is allowed. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present dispute, certain judicial orders have been passed against the respondents No.5 & 6 in the civil proceedings.

4.

Learned counsel for respondents No.5 & 6 submits that the judicial order passed by the Civil Court has been assailed before the higher Court and there is an interim order in their favour.

5.

Be that as it may, in view of the submission made above by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the issue, which has been raised in this petition, has already been raised in other proceedings, in which, certain judicial orders have already been passed.

6.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is finally disposed off.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted liberty to raise all the grounds, which have been raised in this petition, before the competent authority.

8.

No such liberty is required.

SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane