c- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU_R W.P. N0.-17 ^2-OF 2002 IN THE MATTER OF:- "ISI 1. M/SHEGLIMITED,acompanyduly incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Mandideep Distt. Raisen (M.P.) and a Sponge Iron and Captive Power Plant at Industrial Growth Centre, Borai, P.0. Rasmada - 491 009, Distt. Durg (C.G.) iii VERSUS PETITIONER ..<s 1. CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT • CORPORATION LIMtTED, (a Govt. of Chhattisgarh undertaking) formerly known as M.P.Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Raipur) Ltd.,p.^ having its Head Office at B-4, M.R. '<"- Colony, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492 001. . 2. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Department of Cpmmerce, and Industries, ^antralaya (D.K. Bhawan) G.E.Road, Raipur(C.G.) -^•* ')I^L^f^ --^-^'^^:-"^ ^,^e^f. ,^ Rl» <1^"' ,Ji. ...ResDondents -it w ^ :. ••- "^, ••-:-SS'li ^ •:,'^f^ff\ '^ ,' l:-^ii.. i ;^.?., i^Eilf ^ o..-'.VI PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR TH£JSSUANCE^FWRITS ^, IN THE NATURE OF MAN DAMUS, CERTIORARt, ETC. ETC. '^ND/OR FOR ORDER (S) AND/OR FOR DIRECTION(S) IN IH£NATURE OFWRITS ">6' Af i ..Jf:l ^' ,^ ./''.A"? M' -.' "'f.f' f .^-'.& ! .. ...s'1 ^^^.f' HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petition No. 1742 of2002 Petitioner M/s HEG LIMITED Versus Respondents Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & another Sln^e Beach : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agfuhotft. Shri. B. P. Shanua, Advocate for the petitioner. Snit. Sinita Ghai, Advocate for ttie respoadent No. 1, Shri Sunil Otwani, Panel lawyer for the respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (12th May, 2006) The foUowitig order of the Coiirt was passed by Satislt K. Agaihotri, J. On being inentioned, ttus I.A.No. 50017/2006, appUcation for wiflidrawal of the petition is taken on record. Leamed couusel for fhe petitioner, on uistruction, siibmlts that the petitioner does not want to pursue this niatter aud seeks to withdraw tlie petitioa. Leamed counsels for fhe rcspondents have no objectioa, if the appKcation is entertamed and considered. In view of tlie averments made in tlie appUcation, fhis application is ordered, as piayed for. Consequently, tfae petitioa is disinissed as withdiawu. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge