<4r ^ C^"^-T3^ lD SINGLE BENCK IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC ) No. M&Of OF 2011 PETITIONERS ..-^. >w.^ ^&v c!''/9"y ^ ^ / s&/'^ / .^'^ /'w RESPONDENTS s*?'^ ^ % \^ UI.K^- ,\ ^7^- ^•-T^ 1. RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, AGED - 52 YEARS, S/0 LATE SHRI HAJARI LAL AGRAWAL, ACTING CHAIRMAN OF C. G. STATE PHARMACYCOUNCIL R/0 R - 5, KRANTI NAGAR, BILASPUR, DISTRICT - BILASPUR (C. G.) 2. KAMAL CHANDRAKAR, AGED - 43 YEARS, S/0 SHRI MURARI LAL CHANDRAKAR, MEMBER OF C. G. STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL R/0 KANKALIPARA, RAIPUR DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH - ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY ^P-FARE, MANTRALAY, D. K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR 2. C. G. STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL, THROUGH - ITS REGISTRAR, QR. N0. 77, SECTOR - 3, GEETANJALI NAGAR, RAIPUR (C. G.) 3. SHRI MANOHAR JETHANI, S/0 LATE DR. VARIYAL DAS JETHANI, SIDE KOHINOOR HOTEL, BAANS TAAL, AMARDEEP TALKIES ROAD, RAIPUR (C. G.) c^ 4. SHRI DINESH DUTT DUBEY, S/0 SHRI R. D. DUBEY, R/0 DUBEY MEDICAL STORES,BUS STAND BEMETARA, DISTRICT - DURG (C. G.) Writ Petition under Article - 226/227 of the Constitution of India. HIGH COURT OF CHMATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {0 N0.4801 QF 2011 PETITIONERS Rajendra Agrawal & Another Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitutjon of India) Single Bench : Mon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate forthe petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri Y.C. Sharma, Advocate forthe respondents No.3 &4. ORDER (Passed on this 21st day of November, 2011) » 1. Meard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the very outset, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 & 4, submits that as observed in the orderdated 20-7-2011 that the preliminary objection raised by the other side would be decided first, there is no question of deciding the same on merit and no decision has been taken on preliminary objection. First the preliminary objection will be decided and thereafter, after return is filed, issues may be framed and the final decision shall be taken on merits, if it becomes necessary. 3. In view of the above, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition fbr adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Gowri Sd'- .. ._, Satish K. Agnihotn Judge