cf.-3^^ ^e \\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATURE AT BILASPUR ^- CHHATTISGARH ,.±^t:^/ WRITPETITIQNJ^O. h» Bhagwani Rice Mill, Through its Proprietor-Vijay Ubharani, Aged about 38 years, S/o- Goyerdhan Das Ubharani, R/o-Torya, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Shankar Rice Mill, Through its Partner- Goverdhan Das Ubharani, Aged about 56 years, R/o- Torya, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Bhavani Food Product, Through its Proprietor- Amit Ubharani, Aged about 28 years, R/o- Torva, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONERS v^rFI^'^ ^3a»hs—^ VERSUS Unionoflndia, Through its Secretary, Deptt. ofConsumerAffairs, Food & Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 5tate ofChhattisgarh, ^hrough the Secretary, ^^ Deptt. ofFood and Civil Supplies, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. Food Corporation of India, Through its Managing Director, Head Quarter-FCI, 16-20, Sarakharba Lane, New Delhi. ,^-c&^ c^^^s^ •^' '^ ^i^y .^^ ••:;^$?-"" •s^ y ^^"v UG^ 4. The Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. The District Manager, Food Corporation oflndia, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6. The District Manager, F.C.I. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE % RESPONDENTS .<^ 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. cle HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRJT PETITION No. 4107 of 2003 PETITIONERS : Bhagwani Rice Mill & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Unionoflndia& Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: None for the petitioners. Shri R.K.Pali, Advocate appearing on behalfofSmt.Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union oflndia. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.l Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Advocate with Shri SaifKhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 to 6. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 30th day of November, 2010) The matter is called for hearing. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners may not be interested in pursuing the matter. In view of the above, the matter is dismissed for want of prosecution. Consequently., interim reliefgranted earlier is discharged. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit