p7 CD EN ?E§E EHQE CQEJR'E @F CHEATTE§GARH AT BILASPUR W OWN mm mm 9: E’ETH‘EGNER NO —' .L: ’S?nt. Mintu devi W/o Late Ramsingh Through—Jagdish Singh Raigarh Jute Mill Labour Colony aigarh (C G) (”gWa’a/f v‘d'z‘ khuskku §\ 9’0 1‘ gr4mgl”4 W A“ a lew" Tkrcc» k i q~u~u\ Cwn‘vbuvx MOW“ @v-A m “Lu @§§SE§ mm me 11w5wk «IL mniugw CaAoh 7 gm9" 7k Cu g ) A f/ S?®NEEEN"E§ M/s Sau Lmers Through Owner ' Shap No.2, Arihant Complsx; Pachpéaii Naka, Ring Road N01 \A \ 6 ..... ‘\ C............... \y) ....... Raipur (CG) fag; Man neveiapers Pvt. Ltd; Managing Director Mahasamund Road, Near Chhokra Na1a NHuo, Raipur {(3.62) 3, menmar M nagyar (Prerects) pity Mal} Doveropers grit“. Ltd. Qtr. N0. F—6; Ground Econ Shivam Buiiding, Golcha Park ‘Mahavir Nagan Roipur (CG) /. , r VJ§§§T EEE'EEE‘EQN UNEEER ARTEQLES 226 & 227 @F TEEE ®N§THCUH®N @F §N§H RE € A Present: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ,, WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2434 of2009 PETITIONERS : Smt. Minm Devi & another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : M/s. Saif Liiiers & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.K.Vyas, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No. 2&3. o y H \H ‘r, ORDER ORAL r (Passed on 22“ day of June, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that pursuant to the order dated 13.04.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed in Case No. 11/W.C.Act/2008 (Misc), the earlier order dated 19.03.2008 has been quashed and the matter has been directed to be heard on merits. The next date of hearing has also been f1Xed on 05.07.2010. Shri Vyas further submits on the basis of averments in para 9.4 of its returnedated 04.10.2009, that the petitioner has rightly been compensated and compensation has already been paid to the petitioner. With regard to the dispute asto who is liable to pay the compensation, the issue is pending consideration between the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3. Thus, nothing r . survives in this matter for adjudication at this stage and this petition has become infmctuous. Learned counsel appearingfor the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 and 3 have no obj ection. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous in the light of above-stated submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 in its return. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated. )/,, Satish K. Agnihom Judge \ Sdl- Amit g