SK t^- '$d8 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH GOURTOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR BEamoNER ^; B?i W.P.fCtNO. / ^ 8 ° /2009 : 1. Inderjeet Ghai W/o , Amal Kumar " Ghai, • Aged about 43 • years, R/o Station Road, Raipur, Distriet - Raipur (C.G.) ^ ^m^s^- Vi^-'^^;'"^ ;-'"<LAS;-?«; t"s$^'^*>. " 8i -")~-'' /- Jaswinder Kaur Chhabra W/o Late Sardar Amrick Singh Chhabra, Aged about 60 years, R/o Station Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Tajinder Singh Chhabra S/o L^.te Sardar Amrick Singh, Chhabra.Aged about 40 years, R/o[ Station Road, Raipur, District - Rai^ur (C.G.) i. ss 4. Fakir Singh S/o Late Shri Banta Singh, Aged about 70 years, R/o Station Road, Raipur, District - Raipur(C.G.) ^ 5. Ravindra Singh, S/o Shri Inder Singh Aahuja, aged about-42 years, R/o Station Road Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS | SPONDENTS ^l. StateofChhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Raipur Municipal Corp6r&tion, , ThrougU - ItSjCommissioner, Raipur, District - RaijSir (C.G.) Si^E PETITION UNDER ARTKa^; 226 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OFINDIA ^ HIGHG©lJH1~'©F;©l-ll-lMn']§@^R :;Bll...^gBt.lR \WRITtET'mt3N^N PETITIONER Pannalal Pandya ';.; Versus ': ' : •, : • •!::" REgPQNRENT&. : ; StateM^%^ . WRI'T E'E-m-IQN. (e).N0.il880:i3R20G9 :: | • PETITIQNERS - InderjeetGhai&Qthers Versus RESPONDENTS State ofGhhattisgaFh & Anothier WRITPETITIDNCCyN(3.23520F20D9 PETITIONERS Holaram & Another Versus t RE©PONDENTS StateofKhhattisgarh&Another :WRIT'PETmQN(e)Mffi23g30tr200r PETITIOMER Smt. Oulaba Bai RESPONDENTS Versus Stafe of Chhattisgarh & Another AnQ : '",. :', •• :• »a W/RITRETITION(C) N0.2354 OP2009 PETIT10NER ^^ ^ Pujari Versus BggPQNDENTS StateotChhattisgarh&Another (WritPetition unaerArticle226oftheGpnstitutionof!ndia) Single Bench : Hon'bleShriSatishK.Agnihptri.J. Present:- Shri Sunil'Otwani, Adyocate for theiR6titiQhers.'!.' ; ShriA.S.Kachhawaha;Dy:Adv,Generalforth6Stafe. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advcicate for the .resporident MuniGipa] Corporation.' .,,,.••.,:••'.'.:' ••; •; ;; |:. • .i'\":.i: '• ORDERORAU •;^.•.' :' ..:1'. .; •., {Passedonthis 20th tlay'ofAugust, 2010) ^ 1. At the veiy outset, Shn Otwani.'learned'counsel iappeanng^forlh^^^ petitiohers, subrtiits that ffie fa^anjS questiQn 6f;lsiw irTyelvgd^ A-i^s Ki! QoWri ttie present batch Of :hnattere are;the; Same, (ArtiielT^ eonsicteratibn before the Divislon Behoh df this C6urt in Jaev Rakhan Pansan v. State of GhhaWsgarh & An^ CQnnectecf matters. Leamed cdunsel further submifs that tHe presentpetitionsmaybedisposeddfirithesameterrns. Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing for the State and Shri Kgfihif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Municipal C@rporationi have no QbjeGtion tothe prayer made by the leamed courrgerappearingforthepetitionerSanGl further submit tliat the Case of the petitjoners would Be CQnsidei-ed and dealt with in the same terms of decision 6f the Diyision Bench ofthis Court rendered in Jeev Rakhan Pansan(supra): •: i In view of foregoing, according te thelearned coynsel appearing for the petitioners, ngthing survives in these petitions for adjudication. . ; AGCordingly.all tliewritpetitionsaredisposed of. However, it is made clear that ifsome information is required from the petitioners by the respondents, the petitioners have to produce the same beforethe authoritiesconcemed. ——— ''; ! : .'" : ' . Sd/- , Satish K-Agnihotri : Judge