LuPm I460/ag BEFORE THE H.P.5TATE QDMlNISTRATlVE TRIBUN%L Pamcwm. mama. ”2/0 agwwagawufr: O 5/:3F 159;, s \J/ R&j&ndva Kum&w Va u, gun nf Ehvi Chadanl&1 Ya§uy aqad ahmut 3% Tima K&&pwv? C ' . C 5m a l {5&1 k3 Q, DISTRICT RaJNANDGRHN ~ FeEid$n$ OF H&WARDH&Y DISTRICT R JNANDGADN P TITIGNER .JV mivigimm NmuE? KQwAR VERSUS $i$ta af Hadhy& wrada$h thrnugh the SauVQtary, wata? Ra$guv$ @rtm&nt, Govarnmant af M&mhy% Fr&&egh, EHDPéLu Enqineerwin DaK£mQHEyW:Gg;é;n$:5£lu¥§JM&&g;: (h3wr Nx?er REwourte Wrade$hy EHQP§Ln Chief EngimQQr, water Ra§aurce§ Depavkmant’ M“G“ H&5iny RQIPURu Superintgndinq R§§nura§g §§&rimé;t;; Ingx“9$r Y§hiviaig w4t9i M&na&l, §URG¢ @e.murc@$ EKacutivg Dwwarimanty Enqinwar, KQH@RnQ$; NaTar DISTRICT RAdNANDGAEN. REiSPiDN'XlMEhi'T'S Q F A P P L i C A T i O N D E T § é 4 . ,¢ g' LE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S; N0. 1460 of2005 PETITIONER Rajendra Kumar Yadu. VERSUS S‘iate of Mgdhya Pradesh & thers. O RESPONDENTS W SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aunihotri J. Shri N.N.R0y, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 07m day of December, 2009) The matter is called for hearing twice. None appears nor any represemation is made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner may not be interested in pursuin the maiter. g In View ofthe above: the matter is dismissed for want ofprosecution. Registry is directed to $end a cepy 0fthis order to the petitioner, forthwith. Amit Sdl- ;1‘ atish K. Agnihotri S {{ ; Judge M Presen None for the petitioner. go “ t: