f% AT W.P. No.-1"l^v / 2003 '••' /••^^ • ^ ^ R^^^^d^^ Ver^ia^ 7s Udai Lsil S/o Bheralal, ^ proprietory flrm. ..having its proprie/tor Shri Udailg!. Through Puranmal Anjana S/o iate Shri RamIaijiAnjana, aged about 32 yearg R/o Nimbahera, Holder of Power of Attoraey 011 behalf of Udailal. S/o Bheruhii. South Eastera-CoalfeIds Ltd., Through ite Managing Director, Calcutta T^e Geiiera! Mansger ^&M), ?ra! -I Tt;1- .^' ?CL, Seepat Road, Biissoui'^C.G.^ THE CONSTITUT!ONOF,INDIA: " '^: XI-HC—78 "3^'^ipn^T, ^t{)-yji<o, ?®«ni'My,< [jJ^H^H^lf^c^ NWdT^WP^ "^200 ^I^T^R^ ('^3^^) ^I^f^Tf^fte ^T«Hw^i ^^Nr /..--' ^- ^nw^^f ^sr 1^N^?h ^Tprof ^* f^cst '<P»S^K "^ 3tRR <3?n^T ^\f 21.6.2003 Shri P. Diwakar, leamedj counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Viaay Harit, leome^ counsel for the respondents. On a mention being maitle, this case is being takcn up alongwttIl^.P.No. 1725/03. Heard. Rcsppndents have file^ retum and havc also ffled documents to show that ^arller notlce was Issued on hdd 22.11.2002 wherein they They had referred the explfflaation why actton should not be initiated. It is sought tbr the explanation. d^viation and sought for the invbking clause 2.2.1 agreement ialso submitted fhat reminders were issued and it was on ] did not hear anything from served with a notice on J2/2/2003 reply to this notice- dated 22.11.2002 was subuiiltted. Thereafter the petitioner the respondents and he was 1^.3.2003 (aimexure P/3). The ^etifioneriiledarepresentati^n (Annexure P/4) on 17.5.2003. f- sn^r^T^w WT 3??i^r ^iN? V < <n* ii <»*ii^» -3"5Ef "^fFff^R, ^xll^4!^, T®l^ll^!i< lo'P.No. \1.^ll^^^ ^......................................^............^200 W^T TT5RT (^i^^4) The respondent.s have sT]l|)mitted that they have filed dociunent (Annexure R/4/r4ply dated 3.6.2003), which is said to have been forwarded fcnd the saine has been received vide Anncxurc-R/5 on 7/6/2 Leamed counsel for |±ie petitioner submitted that siraUar notices were ser^ed 0^1 other persons by the Westem Coal Field ajid they have flle4 Joint CivU Judge, Junior Divi^ been passed on 12.6.20031 respondents had agreed to 1.7.2003- Leamed counsel s counscl, Hc should axagi filc t Under the circumstan petitioncr wants to withdraw ./ ^nf^qt^ 'Ri^f'? 'f^t <f^^K iT^RR^m^i 03. The copies have bcen filcd. civil suit in the Court of VIIIth ion, Nagpur where an order has there the counsel for the i;xtend the period of notiee till si^braits that he does not possess the certified copy ofit but havi|ng the cominunication froin the tic aforcsaid docuincnt, ;es, leamed counsel for the t(his petition with liberty to avail J:he reniedy under fhe ordinar^ law. /-50,000. <nwir »*<s^» 'S^T'^TFtT^T, s9xl)'(H<l(o, [®l<yt!'M^< tO.P. 1-7^3/^<^^ ^200 ^v^i JV^K (yii^^r) SffT^T'^T'f^ybF TOT W^V >*8ic?» \-. •^- "r-" <&<wi<^ ^a ^n^?i -a Tt is siibniitted that tlie June, 2003 and further in contained in the letter dated been callcd to scttilc thc accdunts extenslon of tlme. It 1s for the within ttieir discretion. Certilied copy as per rul^ 'eM<i<f<r(€il<i11R^f ^f fe^ <fa^i< ^ ^ifOT 3?i^y tjme is going to expire on 23rd view of the termination as 119/3/2003, the petitioner has He inay bc allowcd thc |respondents to conslder as it 1s Accordingly, this petitio^i stands disposed of with the libcrty as prayed. s- ; SdA Fakhruddin Judge