.A":" ^l?^J|Z94/c.5 BEFORE TKE H.P. SIStTE ADMIiMISTRft.TIVS TRIBUN&L JAB& L P UR APPLICANT O.A.NO^ (n Parauram Katlam.s/o B^<rA r/o Aktai, post Surpa, Tahsil.pafcan, Distt. Durg (M.P.). -Versus" State o£ M.p,through the SssssKs Director, PubliG instructions, BHOE&L. ' >*\ KESPONDSKTS 2. Tne Dy. Director, Pi-iblic lastructions, Distt. Durg. APPLICATION U/S 19 O? TKE ADMINli7JSTIVE TRIBUI^LS ACT, 1985 -W.--! t 'TtVT ||)li.!!; ;i •H. i •fw HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT WRITPETmONf-S) No. 1294 of2005 Parauram Katlam. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofM.P. & another. APPLICATION U/S 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT. 1985 ^ • • .•::^.- • - ••• • .-i ^ SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Asnihotri, J. Present: None for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerwith Sfari A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDERfORALy (Passed on 16tn day of November,2009) 1. The matter is called for hearing twice. None appears nor any representetion s made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner may not be interested in pursuing the matter. 2. In view ofthe above, the matter is dismissed for want ofprosecution. 3. Resistry is directed to send a copv ofthis order to the petitioner, forthwith. Gown