'2^', ^-t.sjslt. ip ^^ &:'l.^^l! s IN THE HT©HCO^I" ©FCHHATTISSABH AT BILASPBR (C.&.), WMT-PSSISXOS-IO^-iaEV!lj.;—;it-l-iL^-ji-200^ (angle Bencb Ci-vil Ebtter). PETITIONER :- SMT. BCTA BHODY ...<ru-/ aged about..3k|.....years ^V--;""^""' ..••• W/o Sbri. Atul Dhody, ^:-'' ...-••" ^>ffS\--'' ^-" C/0 DHGDT PETROL P« ..•••';/^'^-?" ®-E* BOAD D%©, ^'^' ./'' Pos-t, Tah. & Blstt. DWiS (C.©.). ^"!>-"" yy ::VERS®:; (:1) SANJEEV KBMAR ASRAWAL aged aboufc 57 years, S/o Sbrt R.K. Agrawal R/o Hoase fe. 1293 Street Ho. 7, New Shairt;! Ifegar» Post, Tah. & Idstt. RAIP% (C.S.). (2) WTTED I®IAINSURANCE COMPANY UMTTB: Bl-vislonal Offlce, Kaehhari- Chowk, KSipm-LS£Gili «^^T^ ^\ ^ SI^£-2F-CH^T?ISSASH' ^"/H. .•go^TOrth^i'&^ Through - Sfcatlon House InchaTge ^ \ "SHA ^l Police Sbatlon-MbhanHaggT, DWS, . <?-\ /^" / 'O^-^ ^'ff/ Tah' & Mstt. Dl3B© (C.S.). contd....; ^^ ^ ® L- (4) PT. JAWAHAKUO- NE ® B£SAL.K_EEAtT.ELANB_ES^fficfi-CEHTRE ln Hospltal Sector-9> Steel Authorl-fcy o£ Indla U.nd.ted, Bhllsl Nagar* Tah. & Blstt. Bwg (C.S.) Through ;- Blrector of Nedical And BBalth Ser-vlces. FETITIOB UNDER ARTICLE 226<5) TI:E_CGNSTITWION GF IKDIA. :Q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ tition fCl No. 1229 Petitioner Smt. Ekta Dhody Versus Respondents Sanjay Kumar Agrawal aad ofhefs Sta^e Beaeh: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agalhotrl. Shri V. G. Tainaskar, Advocate for fhe petitioncr. ^' O RD E R ( Passed on Ist day ofMarch, 2007) The foUowing order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agaihotrl, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of maiidamus to quash the impiigned order (P/3). The petitioner has not poiuted out auy order wtuch is sought to be quashed in this petition. 2. On perusal of fhe papera, it is found that Annexure P/3 is the appUcation ffled by one Shri Sanjeev Kuinar Agrawal for claim under Section 163-A, Motor Vehicle Adhiniyam, 1988. It is difficult to uuderstand how fhe claim ffled by fhe injured persou, iu an accident, can be quashed ia fhe writ petition. 3. TIie petitioner has fiirfher soiight for a dii-ection to decide the preliiuiuaiy objection laised by tfae petitioner ui the said claun case. The petitioner has not pointed out any order, asto whether the appUcation ffled by hiin has not been or has been consKlered or aay orier faas been passed by the fribuD^al. 4. This petition is not uiauitainable, being frivolous, as it does not disclose any cause of action and lacks coinplete niaterial facts. The petition has been ffled in such a way as if, this petition is as origmal petition before the Tnbunal. It appears to be abuse and laisuse ofthe judicial pnx:ess. 5. Tfaus, fhis petition is disniissed suinmarify. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^^Sf ffiS ffl ii^Si fiSI^SBS KHBK E^f