IN IHE HIGB COURT OF MADBYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR '-<>-^':^ WRII PEIIIIONN07 ' 'OE 1994 M. P PETITIONER: B.izvan Ul Haque S/o _Shrt Abdul Bari , aged 33 years , Sarpa'nch , Gram Antagarh , Tahsl.i Antagarli , Dlstrict Bastar , M.P. VERSUS E.ESJQNDENTS 1 Charan , S/o Phaguwaram , resident of Gram Antagarh , Dl.strlet Bastar , H.P. 2.ShansherS/o Shrl Alam, Cf^^^ nf1- i^-t^e-Kn^ 3. Hameed:S/o Sbrl ShaUeed , 4. Joharu S/o lacc&an ,_ 5. Shayamslngh S/o Ankal , 6. Ajay S/o Kapoorchand, 7. Parasnal S/p Deepchand, 8. Anand Sharma S/o Phoolchaad, 9. Ratanraa S/o Ranjeet Slngh, 10 Phoolslngh S/o Soansingh, 11 Ra.}ru S/o Manslngfi ,. '-A '%lss/0%. O'r/' ^^F^ Cf' \^ J elsirt.SIMt^^ V,t" >, .> -I l^ 1 ) ^J j>-2> ^y -> J> )). 12 DukaluS/0 Latei , l^ Rameshwar S/o Shukhdeo , l4.Laksbman S/o Heeralal , 15.Vl.jay S/'o Jaylal , 16 RajeshS/o Ankalu, . 17 Ramjee S/o Paklur;am. , 18 Deepak S/o Mathura , ^ ; , 19 Mukesh Kumar S/o Rajesh Kumar, 3< — -»/— "-1. 1.1 — — '/:1- ^ — ' / •— —•l/:- €: All Nos. 1 fo 19 are re's*d6Ut; of Grau Antagarh , Tahsll Antagarh, DlstriiCt Bastar. 20 Shrl Dhananjay Bevangatt , S/o not knpwn ,a.ged about 40 years , Sub Divlsipnal MagtstEate, Naraln Gunj , now transferred ; to jBastar, Dlstrlct Bastar >M'^-. ' 21 Ihe Sul) SiTlsl.onal Offltier , K.evenue , Narayanpur Dl strl.ct Bastar M.F J 22 Ihe State of Maclltya^ Pradesh thraugt je^ar^i&t^iE Bastar , Dls^rict Bastar , M.P. ;2S'/f ^•3t: •a'- :< "i-J S l^ / 2 / 23 Ihe Block Development Officer cum Returnlng Offlcer , Antagarh , Dlstrlet Bastar.M.P. WRII PEIIIION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF IHE CONSTIIUIION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANGE OF WRIT OR WRITS IN IHE NATURE OF MAHDAMJS—, CERIIORARI^ PROHIBIIION AND | OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION . .••SjW=.'^-^W•'KF*^- HIGH cotner OP jxjDKATtnue aniATnsoARH: BILASI»UR Sta^le Bench: Hoa'bte Sliri Satlsli K. Agatbotri, J. W.P.No. 3778 of 1994 Ptetitioner : Rizvan Ul Haque Versus -e Respondente Charan and ofheis None appeare for the petitioner. SIui Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 21, 22 and 23/State. ORDBR (29tt Kowmber, 2006) The matter is caBed for hearing twice. On both occasions, none appcars nor aay rcpresentation is inade on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordiagly dismfased for want of prosecution. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge M Thakur