c ^\^ IN THE HIGH COURT 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. ^A'*'t-/20Q5: Petitioner ^ '...•••%:!""... -y^ .••^f\>''' ...••'" >^s>--' /••'tf^:^ )••••' >1 ^s. .7^Respondents \.-' ..^ S.S. Bhadoriya, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri Kripal Singh Bhadoria, R/o Quarter No. 1/B- 40, Kirandul, district South Bastar, Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS National Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Head Office, Hyderabad Mazab (Masab) Tank, Castle Hill, Hyderabad (Andhrapradesh). The General Manager, N.M.D.C. BAILADILA iron Ore Project, Deposit No. 14, Kirandul district South Bastar, Dantewada (Chhattisgarh). ^^ ^" ./« Director (Prd.), National Mineral D.C. Ltd. Massab Tank Hyderabad, (Appellate Authority) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE -•-'•^^-' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^Biaai.uiMnn iO, HiGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Petition No.5412 of 21 S.S. Bhadoriya - - -Versus- National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. & others Present: Shri Yogesh Pandey, Aa'vocate: Shri Vinod Deshmukh. Advocate: For petitioner. For respondents. ORAL ORDER 45t (Passedon 15IMav,2006) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petiiioner has preferred She statutory appeal before respondent No.3 which was pending consideration at the time when this petition was filed praying that the original impugned order dated 12.12.2004 be quashed. The petitioner has come earlier by way of Writ Petition No.114/2005 impugning the order dated 12.12.2004 which was disposed of with liberty to file an appeai before the appropriate authority prescribed under the iaw. 2. The petitioner, in this petition, has not prayed for early disposa! of the appeaf, but reiterated the same prayer, which was made in Writ Petition .114/2005, the same stood disposed of with liberty to nle statutory appeal. However, the petitioner has made specific averment in the petition that the appeal was pending consideration at the time of fJHng of this petition. It is now, informed by learned counsel forthe petitioner that the appeai has now been disposed of by respondent No.3. 3. in view of the subsequent development, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with iiberty to fi!e fresh petition irapugning the order, if any, passed in the statutory appeal fiied by the petitioner impugning the order dated 12.12.2004 (Annexure-P/1). No order as to costs. 4. Certified copy as per Rules. SdA SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ia"/e