3 IN THE‘HIGH COU§T OF JUDICATURE AT'JABALPUR‘(MP). Writ pe1:ition No. g‘%g_/1999 Petnmn Under Article 226 read with Artlcle 227 of the Constltution oi Indla. M* Petitioner M/§ GJ’. Kedia‘a'nd Company, _registe‘red partnership Firm, ‘ Through ; its partnerkG P Kedia, aged about 1:9 years, son of Shri 1V P. ‘kedia, r/o A-7, RP Housing Board Colony, Balco “agar, horba (KP). Versus Respondents , “1., The State of bu? through the gecretary Government o; hadhya Pradesh, (Water Resources Department, MantralayawVallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M?) The $uper1ntend1ng Englneer, hater Resources Department , Hasdeo Bango Circle Kharia” bi‘strict Baiga‘rh (MP) The Executlve Engxneer, Mater Resources Department, Hasdeo Sub M1nor Division No.2, Water Resources Division $aKti Dlstrict Bilaspur (PP). The Naib Tahsildar, ‘ Korba (MP). *9HQI Particulars of ‘ the petitioner As given in the oause title. ’Pértioular‘s. of the respondents ( As given in’ the cause title. I ‘ s , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR I Writ Petition No.888 of 1999 M PETITIONER: M/s. G.P. Kedia and Company Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of M.P. (now the State of C.G;) 2. The Superintending Engineer 3 . The‘ Executive Engineer 4. The Nab Tahsildar {Petition under Article 226 read with Articie 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: None present for the petitioner. Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORDER (1 1—9—2012) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has chalienged legality and propriety of the order dated 15—2-1999 passed by respondent No.4 in Recovery Case No.16/A/76/98—99. 2. When the old matter of the year 1999, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 23—8-2007 and again restored vide order dated 8- 2-2008, is called for hearing, none present for the petitioner. No representation is made. 3. In absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner, the petition is again dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs. ‘l Sdl- 12 U T.P. Shérma ’ ’ judge