Komal Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 493 of 2019 {Arising out of order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 39 of 2019} • Komal Patel, S/o Late Shri M.L. Patel, aged about 52 years, OccupationAdvocate, Resident of 1929/3, New Shobhapur Colony, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Principal Secretary Revenue, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Competent Authority Under The Provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 cum Additional Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Tehsildar (Nazul) Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Collector Raipur Office of Collectorate, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Aarti Infrastructure and Buildcon Ltd. (Old Name Aarti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.) Through Director Rajeev Agrawal Son of Shri R.S. Agrawal Office Ashoka Ratnn, Shankar Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

6. Santosh Sahu S/o. Late Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o. Village Mava Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

7. Suresh Sahu S/o. Dashrath Sahu Aged About 52 Years Resident of Village Mova Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

8. Devendra Kumar Sahu S/o Santosh Sahu Aged About 24 Years Resident of Village Mava Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

For Appellant :

Shri Siddharth Dubey, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Shri Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 23.10.2019 1.

This appeal is preferred by a stranger, against the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the I.A. filed by the writ Petitioner seeking for permission to withdraw the petition was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

2.

The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is constrained to approach this Court because of certain serious allegations levelled against the lawyer in the writ petition. However, on confronting with regard to the proper remedy and course of action available to the Appellant in such a situation, the learned counsel seeks for permission to withdraw the matter, without prejudice to the rights and liberties to pursue other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

3.

Permission is granted.

4.

The writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan