é 1 S§§$§LE §E§€QH C%No®//r IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARI AT BILASPUR ‘CHHATTISGARHI w.P.(c') No. A03£X 0f 2009. PETITIONER ':: /M/s. Singhania Ispat Pvt. Ltd. through its Director ‘ Sonal Kumar Singhania, S/o; Shri 0) W Ganesh Prasad Singhania, aged v\ .. O about 28 years, R/o. Balbhadra v “iii. Ward, Sati Mandir Road, 'Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS :1) Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Jeevan Bima Nigam Vyavsayik Parisar, Pandari, Raipur through Executive Director :2) Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Branch Office Near Tifra Petrol Pump, Tifra Railway Fatak, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) through Managing Director WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA K Hiuh Court of Chhattis arh at Biiasnur WPJC! No.6(t99 of 2009 M/s $inghania, ‘spat Pvt. Ltd. through iis Director Sena! Kumar Singham‘a, S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Singhania, aged about 28 years, R/o Balbhadra Wrd, Sati Mandir Road, Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG) 1. Chhattisgarh Stae mdustrial Development Corporaticn Ltd. Jeevan Bi Nigam Executive Vyavsayik Director. Parisar, Pandai, Raipur through 2. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Deveiopment Cerperation Ltd., Branch Ofhce Near. Tifra Peirol Pump Tifra Raiiway atak. Tifra, BHasp‘ur {CG} through Managing Director. M SE : Hon’ble Shri Dhérendra Mishra . the petEtioner. $hri B AgrawaL Sr. dvocae with Smt. Meera Jswa}, counsel for Shri asif Shakeei, Standing Counsel for the respondent-CSIDC. The petitioner has tiied the instant petition and prayed for quashing of‘ the order of canceiiation of Annexue P/3. The petitioner has also averted tn the petition that the petitione has preferred an appeai before the Chairman of CSIDC, however, the same has no been decide. Shri Kasit Shakeei. ieared Stding Counsei for the resonden- SIDC submits that th appeai preferred by the petitioner has alread been n an pt C e y dismissed on 30‘“ August, 20% and the same has been communicated to the petitioner twme. 7 in View of above repiy/objection of iearned counsei for the respondent- CSIDC, teamed counsei for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to chaiienge the order in appeai. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawnbvt'ith liberty as rayed for. Sd/— j Dhirendra Mishraf Judge ’ M a Petitioner Versus Resgon&ents t ma r F J 27.1 0.2009: H At a K r r t d p