^f^.w-^":^' IN THE HIOH COURT QF JUDICeTURC AT JABALRJR MRIT PETITION N0. ^ ^ ^ - /1999. <WRIT PEiTION tWDER ARTIGI-E 226/22? OF TME €^3NSTITUTt€»itlF IN&IA» ^ PETITIONERs A RESPQNDENTSi ^^^s^ '^",-""~ ^-^ <^A ~% ^ i • e-P..@han€lrakari S/a Shri P•N <. Chandrakari aged aSwut 58 y©ar1s, C/o Bombay Market, e.E. ftoad, Raipur (M.F.y <-s-" 2« Yogendra Kastwar, S/o Shri B-K- Bupta, aged about 5t year^i C/o Bombay Market, ©«E<Roadl, Raipur <H<P») 3. H.U. Pathak S/0 Shrt U.S. Pathak* aged about 60 years^ C/o Bcwnbay Market» 6 •E < Roadi Raxpur <M<P«) 4*. Suresh Tiwari S/o Shri B-R. Tiwax, aged abcmt 4®year%> Proprietor- Anuja AdvertiBing Agency,C/o Bombay Market, 6.E. Road, Raipur <M.P»> 5« Suraj Prasad Pachori, S/o late Shrx 0*D« Pachoriy aged about 50 years, C/o Bombay Market^ Q.E« Road, Raipur (M.P.) &. O.P. Mandeja S/o ^IR.Mandeja aged about 4SLyear^» C/o Boinbay Market, ©.E»Road, •••t^ipur-'1•<W*P,')-• -••^ •• - - ; • • - • -:: 7« Mahtru Sriya<s» ' S/o Kapil Sen» aged about 82 year^, C/o Bc»mbay Narkefe, © <»E, '•fteipur-<W.P-»^: ;w—-.r' ••••-^ Rcmct, //Ver^us// 1» ftaipur Oevel^pment^ T Authority,A tocxty inctypc^ate^^^^^^^- under^ Section-38 of Nagar T^itha ©ramNivesh Adhiniyam, having its^ officre at 6.E» Roadi •:Ralpur~'l<M.?-.••»•.•-—T-- -1--11 — - — 2< The Chairmani T^^^^^^^^^- Raipur Develoi^nent Authorityi^^^^^^^^^ •--Raxlpur-;'-<'W.P.>ll-.-"'s~---7TJ----l:-----l--'-l-:-----l-:---- -• 3 < Tah^i 1dar < Recovery €>fficer>i Raipur Development Authority» '•ftal'pur---;:':<W«P^^--— • : ^^i^.^^-^^: -7 -2- WRIT PETITION UM&ER ARTICLE 226/227 QF. THE COM9TITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon»bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 2499 of 1999 Petitioners G.P. Chaadrakar & six Others. Versus Respondents Raipur Development Authority aad tvyo ofhers. Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsel for fhe petitloners. Shri B.P. Shanaa, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. Snit. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Goveraraent Advocate for fhe respondent No.3. ORALORDBR (12h May, 2006| 1. I.A. No. 5009/2006, this is an appUcation for withdrawal of fhe writ petition. Learaed couusel appeariag for fhe respondents have no objection, if fhe appUcation is aUowed. 2. In view of the avennents made ui fhe application, fhe appUcation is ordered, as prayed for. 2. Consequently, fhe writ petition is disraissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. Sd/- SadshK.Agnihotri Judge c^'^