HIGHGOURT OF^HHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR DiVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BI-ESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,C..t.& HON'BI-ESHRl^SUNILKUMMlSlNHA.J. Misc.Ch/ilADdealNo. 1292 of 2004 ARPELLANT/ APPUCANT RESPONDENTS/ NQN-APPUCANTS M/s ArtK)ns Engineerihg 1-imited a limited company duly regjstered under the relevant provlsions of .Company Act - 1923, having its prineipal place of business at Agrateal Building, Ist Floor, V^iman Tukaram Patil Maig, ppp. Shatabdi Hospitai, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 32, represented by the Chairman- cum-managjng director Shri N.K. Jagesia, ageciabout62 yearss/& Shri K.D. Jageshia R/o 203, Rajkufir, Linking road, Khar, ^4umbai, Versus 1. State Govemment of G.G. through the Seeretary to the "i Goverhment of C.©.,Mjnistry oif F'anchayat: and Qramin Vikas, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, G.E. Road,RaipurC.G. 2. The Executive lEngineef, and Member / Secretary of Prqject Iraplemerrtation Unit, Kawandha Distrtot l<^wardha (Kabirdharn) C.G.) tVIEMORANDUlWOWI^E^UNDERSSgcrriiON 37(11 (^ORTHEjWBn'RWCiBANDtG^JEai.l^^N Present: Nonefortheappelianfc , ; Sbri U.N.S. Deog^eamed iGovemmgi'tt Advoeate fbr theState/respondenfs. IOiR?l3;E'R,'. . ^OtlTi»larch^2fl09) :ffii ms "BSlilil The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: None for the appellant. 2. As there is no representatlon on behalf of the appellant, we are left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 3. The appeat, therefore, is dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. Consequently, M.C.(P) No. 1840/2004 also stands dismissed for want of prosecution. :\. Sd/- CUiefJustice V:.. Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu