IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATISGARH) W. P. N0.2-i<?:rOF 2002 PETITIONER Sudesh Kumar, S/o H.V. Sangewar, Aged ^- years, Technician (Mechanical) Wire Rod Mill, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^.0< ? '?<'• Steel Authority of India Ltd., (A Govt.of India Enterprise), Bhilai Steel PIant, through General Manager, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Assistant General Manager, WireRodMill, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg. Chhattisgarh. Additional Vigilance Officer Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Collector, (Tribal Welfare) District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR LSSUANCE OP _WRIT IN NATURE QF CERTIORARL MANDAMUS_ PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR_QRDERS: IBai IB! XI-HC-22 'ySt XIIIICII, ®Tll<1<IS,Fqcllfty 3ff^?T '<WR wwii a>*ite' ft v o •t-^.'-' * No«2455 RXititI' SII^tW f^ipTStt^T Sft*l ail^ttSitWflte 20.12.2002 Shri Ashish Shrivast^va, aounsel for the petitioner Today is the last woi 50Q matters la the Ijlst Since many coiainsel had mentiij>ned be taken up, tbe eatire were ticlc marlced, were taken of the other cpunsel, who wefe -lcing dSy and there are about Vrlt Petitions, Civil that the urgent was called out page- to be very |up serJ-ally with present in the Certif-led copy as pei '^lliyf'il-l il^cff t( -f^t <Rii«;i< ^'siPBiati^r Issue notlee OB adml^sion. P.Fo be Beeember, 2002. Also heard oa M»w»P.l| Issue aotlce as abov^ tlie interira, At i^ dlrected that the proceeefSings may coatinu.e but fiaal order |shall npt be passed ti.il the next date of taeariag. In ca^e, P.Fo as dlreeted is not paid. the pett.ifei.sa ghail.-Btaafi'disnilssed. for non-comp.liance without further reference to the Benijh. rules_ Sdf- P.C NAIK Judge M&Btta t '^ S^ 'eK<WvW,W'awie, T^TRIW 'vJ-f- Z<4^sfcA_ s' 3i]S?I ^iT fenq? i ^IT -^H^? ^^'^' i ^rfa-S?!^^^^ pWS^BiH^ ifeNh iWRff •q" •fe%> -j%i<3< 14-01-2003 Shri Ashish Shrivastrava, Adv. for the Petitioner. When the case was listed on 20.12.2002 before the Hon'bte Court, it was directed that the P.F. be paid by 26'1' December 2002. In casa P.F. as directed is not pakl, the PeUtion shall stand dismissed fw non compliance without further reference to the Bench. In wew of the above, this Writ PetiCon is not required to be listed on defiault before A.R.(J) and the questton of extending time for compliance, as prayed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not arise. Office note dated 10.1.2003 shows that the counsel for the petitioner failed to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Court. Therefore, in the light of order passed by the Hon'ble Court the Petition stands dismissed. !• GRPRJ—FS/-?!— ? /200'—50. Sd<-.. ^^ </