^' ^' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR. Petitioners :- 1 \^ <!?' A" ,i <!' c? w" /-^\OY/<— >.5>'..o A -^ -^~^" Writ Petltion no. ^t/? C7/2000. L..ylt)~ ~S\ae./^. Rajendra Kumar Suaderani, S/o Shri Ghuriyamal Sunderani, aged 42 yrs., Proprietor: Sanjay Parvai ladus- trj.es, Nava Para, Rajia, Distt. Raxpur, M.P. 2. Asliok Kumar Bothra, S/o Dfaaraa CIiand Bothra, aged 50 years, Prop.* Aaar Parbai Ling Indus-tries, para Gaon, Nava Para, Rajia, Distric-fcs Raipur, M.P. 5. Vikas Agarwal, S/o Hahabir Prasad | Agarwal, aged40years, Proprietor: | Tirupa'ti Balaji Dhan Prakriya Kendrai Para Gaon, Nava Para, Rajim, District: Raipur, M.F» 4. Kesrimal ji Lonkad, S/o Shri Buddhl- mal ji Lonkad, aged 70 years, Prop. Surya Riee Hills, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhaatari, M.P. 5. Ifarll Agarwal,S/o Omkarmal ji, aged 32 years, Proprietor; Konark Indus- tries, Nava Para, Rajim, Distrj.ct: Raipur, M.P. 6. Prakash Chandra Bothra, S/o late Shri Ramulal Bo'thra, aged 53 years, Partner - Shri Oanesh Rice Mills, Partnership firm, Tarry, Nava Para, Rajia, Raipur, M.P. Vs. Respondents: 1^_IheState of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consuaer Protection Department, • • • • .2- l^ ^ Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P. ^, Ihe Collector, O.ffice o£ Gollecto- \ rate, Raipiir, M.P. 5^, ^he CoUeotor, Office of Collecto- <\v^rate, Dhamtari, M.P. 4.^Ihe D.i.striot Manager, Food Corpora. :ion of India, Habina building, Jail Road, Raipur, M.P. r', ^^ ^.The District Manager, Food Corpora- v\" tion o£ India, Dhamtari, M.P. yRIT__P£TITION OHDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTIIUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRITS/DIRECTIONS. ORDE&/ORDERS* T^T'W ft fT O—<^n—mrm—j.-n-^- •••••5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETITION CQ No. 5120 of2010 PETmONER : Rajendra Kumar Sunderani & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satisfa K. Asnihotri,J, Present: None for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 13" day of September, 2010) The matter is cailed for hearing. None appears nor is any representation made on behatf of the petitioner. The petitioner may not be ioterested in pursuingfhe matter. In view of the above, the matter is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge