s c i U ^ "L.- 6 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fC) N0. ^3^lf /2009 PETITIONER .^•^ ^^•--s^- .-^" ^ ^ ^ ^ACs^ ^^^*i' .^ ^:----^^^ RESPONDENTS Natthulal Pujari, Proprietor Shyam Coldrinks, S/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Pujari, Aged about 76 years, R/o Station Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1,. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Raipur Municipal Corporation, Through - Its Commissioner, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDBRARTICLB 226 OF THE^QNSTITUTION OF INDIA .,.;-'•'' .^'^.,. .^^^n -.'"^ i;'£:T' 1vv!^' <1,"%^^.»« i, ^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1974 OF2009 PETITIONER Pannalal Pandya Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh &Another WRIT PETITION (0 N0.1980 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Inderjeet Ghai & Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2352 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Holaram & Another Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2353 OF 2009 PETITIQNER Smt. Gulaba Bai RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another And WRIT PETITION (0 N0.2354 OF 2009 Natthulal Pujari Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Adv. General for the State. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the respondent Municipal Corporation. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 20th day ofAugust, 2010) 1. At the very outset, Shri Otwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the facts and question of law involved in ^ ,.<--€1''%. ^l '» "•:f^ >:y ^€/" ^: fei,^' >-! the present batch of matters are thesame, which was under consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Jeev Rakhan Pansari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another and other connected matters. Learned counsel further submits that the present petitions may be disposed of in the same terms. Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing for the State and Shri Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Municipal Corporation, have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and further submit that the case of thepetitioners would be considered and dealt with in the same terms of decision of the Division Bench ofthis Court rendered in Jeev Rakhan Pansan(supra). In view of foregoing, according to the learned Qpunsel appearing for the petitioners, nothjng sun/ives in these petitions for adjudication. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. However, it is made clear that if some informatjon is required from the petitioners by the respondents, the petitioners have to produce the same beforethe authorities concerned. „_—- Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 W.^No.116 of 2009 (decided on 26-4-2010)