r ^l-?-?/0 $• -s 2 s- US9 IN THE S'CiSE ADMIBISTMm^_TKIB iL^,T__JlMLPUB__(M^.P.l. s^c O.i^HOT _0^ 1996. &HIRU33H TIMRI ,S/0 S HRI O H&S DRI Kl TI S1KI, O 00 U$ BMD GOHST&BLE S0» 688, A IKA.PUR,SISTT: l2K^'^J|i^^ • &PPLIG41iT. - Versus - 1)STATE O? MADHr& PMDBS1I THROUGHtSEOEETARI, DEPABTMEIT G? JiOMB (POLIGE) 7ALI.&BH BEA.M&H, ^S^^L-J^^^l^. 2)D.I.G.» BIL&SPUa MNGB, DISTTs ^M^l^J^.^.^Li 5)SUPDT. 01? POLIOB, ^MBIK&FIM, DI ST^i^iI^^ajMj.^^.l^ BESPOHDfflTS. £S^I^i-°2-^^£IfI5l;JI.^I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT WRIT PETmON fS) No. 1307 of2005 Aiiimdh Tiwari. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others. SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Affnihotri. J. Present: None for the petitioner. Slm N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 17"' day of November, 2009) 1. The matter is called for hearing twice. None appears iior any rep^sefltation is made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner may not be interested in pursuing the matter. 2. In view ofthe above, the matter is dismissed for want ofprosecution. 3. Registn^ is directed to send a copy ofthis order to the petitionen forthwith. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ~^^ Gowii