BES:'1' K^ffi-/ ISJ:^: s^:'^ <D E;« ^ 1 INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH ; ATBILASPUR W.P.ICINO. f ^ ^ <9 /2009 sBETmONER ' Pannalal Pandya, S/o Late Shri Yadav Ji Pandya, Aged about - 81 years, R/o Behind the back of the house of Mahura Hotel (back to station Crurudwara), Raipur, Wi^^^r..^^ ! Hotel (back to station < BKSil^ft^^i^or District-Raipzir (C.G.) Sim^l<^'"^ •-'•"" . - ' / •Si ^^'v:^: BBS'SR Si?y^i.:% :;J^.^^ -, VERSUS JRESPOKDENTS /I. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretaiy, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ,2. Raipur Municipal Corporation, Through - Its Commissioner, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) j3ffRlTPETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OFTTBECONSTmjTION OFINDIA IL'l! ?•! ^ HIGHG©lJH1~'©F;©l-ll-lMn']§@^R :;Bll...^gBt.lR \WRITtET'mt3N^N PETITIONER Pannalal Pandya ';.; Versus ': ' : •, : • •!::" REgPQNRENT&. : ; StateM^%^ . WRI'T E'E-m-IQN. (e).N0.il880:i3R20G9 :: | • PETITIQNERS - InderjeetGhai&Qthers Versus RESPONDENTS State ofGhhattisgaFh & Anothier WRITPETITIDNCCyN(3.23520F20D9 PETITIONERS Holaram & Another Versus t RE©PONDENTS StateofKhhattisgarh&Another :WRIT'PETmQN(e)Mffi23g30tr200r PETITIOMER Smt. Oulaba Bai RESPONDENTS Versus Stafe of Chhattisgarh & Another AnQ : '",. :', •• :• »a W/RITRETITION(C) N0.2354 OP2009 PETIT10NER ^^ ^ Pujari Versus BggPQNDENTS StateotChhattisgarh&Another (WritPetition unaerArticle226oftheGpnstitutionof!ndia) Single Bench : Hon'bleShriSatishK.Agnihptri.J. Present:- Shri Sunil'Otwani, Adyocate for theiR6titiQhers.'!.' ; ShriA.S.Kachhawaha;Dy:Adv,Generalforth6Stafe. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advcicate for the .resporident MuniGipa] Corporation.' .,,,.••.,:••'.'.:' ••; •; ;; |:. • .i'\":.i: '• ORDERORAU •;^.•.' :' ..:1'. .; •., {Passedonthis 20th tlay'ofAugust, 2010) ^ 1. At the veiy outset, Shn Otwani.'learned'counsel iappeanng^forlh^^^ petitiohers, subrtiits that ffie fa^anjS questiQn 6f;lsiw irTyelvgd^ A-i^s Ki! QoWri ttie present batch Of :hnattere are;the; Same, (ArtiielT^ eonsicteratibn before the Divislon Behoh df this C6urt in Jaev Rakhan Pansan v. State of GhhaWsgarh & An^ CQnnectecf matters. Leamed cdunsel further submifs that tHe presentpetitionsmaybedisposeddfirithesameterrns. Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing for the State and Shri Kgfihif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Municipal C@rporationi have no QbjeGtion tothe prayer made by the leamed courrgerappearingforthepetitionerSanGl further submit tliat the Case of the petitjoners would Be CQnsidei-ed and dealt with in the same terms of decision 6f the Diyision Bench ofthis Court rendered in Jeev Rakhan Pansan(supra): •: i In view of foregoing, according te thelearned coynsel appearing for the petitioners, ngthing survives in these petitions for adjudication. . ; AGCordingly.all tliewritpetitionsaredisposed of. However, it is made clear that ifsome information is required from the petitioners by the respondents, the petitioners have to produce the same beforethe authoritiesconcemed. ——— ''; ! : .'" : ' . Sd/- , Satish K-Agnihotri : Judge