(§jQg!e Bench; Hon'bie Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra) W.P.fOh!o.70BO/09 (Petition U/A 226 of ttie Constitution of India) Shri Ram Industries, a Propr-ietorship Firm, thro-ugh its uuthorized signerfor/ Rarn Shankar Rqjoria, aged about 55 ysars, S/o Late Shri Bhaiy-daS Rcyoriu, R/o Ram Krishna EnciQv'e, Sarkanda. Biicspur (C.G.) Vs 1. Chhattisdarh State Industrial Development CorporGtion; throt^h its Mcsi'ic^iny Dirsctor, L.I.C. Premises. Pandri, Raipur (C.6.) 2. The Executive bireetoi-, ChhiattiS9Grh Stute Industrial &evetopment Corporation, Brianch Gffice, T^fra, Bilaspur (Ce) 3. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State ZpTidu^trid D£vs!ppr?i©nt Co^tpG)''Oiion, L,X.C, Premises, Pandri, Raipur (C.S.) I . Amit Jooi. Advocate 02.12.2009 Mr. Prashant Jayaswal. Sr. Advocate with for the petitioner. Heard. LecMlied Sr. Counsel for the aetitioner submits that the petitioner is not pressing this petition at this stage, howeyer, he prays for liberty to file iapproprigte appiication before the respondent No.l for aifotment of disputed piot forestablishing anotherjndustry and in turn, respondent No.l may be directed tb decide the same as per rules, regulations ai'idin accordancs with law and till liie decision of petitioner'saDDiication, status quo with respect to the disputed piot may be grianted. In yiew of obove submission. the iristant petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitibner to file appr'oprial'e (ippiication before the i-esDondent No.l for allotmerit of the disputed plot for establishinq another industry and in turn. resoondent No.l is directed to decide the same as oer rules, requlations and in accordance with iaw and till the decisi'on of the petitioner's applicdtion, status quo, as it obtains today, with respect to disputed piot shall be fflajntained by the parties. Consequently, I.A, NQ.I &. 2 also stond dismissed. Sd/- Dhkendra Mishra Judge