l . HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : B!LASPUR DIVIS!ON BENCH CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, OJ & HON’BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. WRIT PETmON Nb. 706 OF 2001 PETITIONER Ashok AgrawaL Slo Shri S.C. Agrawal. Aged about 42 years, Occupation — Business and Sociat Worker, Clo Bas Ta! Opposite Khoja Jamat Khan, near Old Bus Stand, Raipur. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Chief Secretary, o Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Chhattisgarh, Eiectricity Board, through its Secretary, Oid Power House, Raipur. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its Generai Manager, Telecom Circle, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 5. Bharti Tele Net Limited/ Airtel, Local Office, through its General Manager, Raipur. RESPONDENTS Present : $hri Prateek Sharma, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Addl. AdVocate General for State. ‘ Shri R.M. Solapurkar, counsel for respondent No.4. Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel‘for respondent No.5. ORAL ORDER“ (Passed on 14m March, 2007) y i The' following oral order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, CJ. Petitioner’is a public spirited citizen. His primary grievance in this writ petition is that the State Government, Municipal Corporations and Municipalities in the State are not charging any fees fromr respondents No.3 to 5‘ while permitting them for laying cabie and for using the land belonging to the Municipal Corporations and the Municipalities. After service of notice, the respondents have filed counter affidavits before this Court. in all these affidavits the statement is made on oath by respondents that-while permitting res ondents No.3 to 5 for laying cables and for digging the land, the State Government, Municipal Corporations and the Municipalities are charging the permission fees and also the compensation amount. lt only shows thath the State Government has not permitted the p respondents No.3 to 5 to use their property without any fees r ‘ whatsoever. Therefore, we are satisfied with the statements made by the respondents in their counter affidavits. in view of the above, this :5 ::. “u petition need not be kept on Board. Accordingly, the petition stands 1’? . " K disposed of. Ordered accordingly. j Sd/. " I IL.“ h V.K. Shrivastava, j Sdl_ x! 3 Judge s Chief’Jgsu'ce