:3W ^1 <7 IN THEHIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNo,^S^^'-3 /2005 Petitioner Respondents z^> ^^y :??•"<.•••'' ^^ .%®y ^'.^y ^'^ r^y ^' ir, v l^ ^& /G %' Chhattisgarh State Handloom Weavers Co- operative Federation Limited, Mahadeo Ghat Road, Maitri Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) through Shri Kasim Ali, Son of Shri Isharul Hasan, aged about 80 years, Member, C.G. State hlandlopm Weavers Co- operative Maryadit, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Secretary, Department of Rural Industries, (Gramodyog), Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Chhattisgarh, Ring Road No.1, Near Police Station. Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Director, Directorate of Rural Industries (Gramodyog), Department of l-1andloom, Sonakhan Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Chhattisgarh Rajya Hathkargha Vikas Avam Vipanan Sangh, Opposite Timber Bhawan, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HBtt;'•"'-"-"'•""- ^~~: ^S-HC-22 an^t^ ^ira'snt?! ^£( •'i-lfsfl Tumar^ \pl. -ysf ^||<<uq, axil'M'ie, facll'My ^ ,P.f\Tu-13-5~?h3/2^A>: WIRTT Sti»il<ft 2CO sn^i wiw'Hf?a SB : Hon'ble Shri Mamndra Mohart 20-01.2011 Shri Rahul Birtharey, counsel Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/responcjents No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. Heard. Though this petition has beer| 18-10-2005, society itself has beerj regard to declaring respondent Nc( petitioner to revive ifthe petitioner-so •*l<<t<«1<fl4'WRIt''? 'fe^t <(«1»1< ^3ti:<Tt(3n^i Shrivastava, J. 'or the petitioner Advocate General with Satish Gupta, ftled by the petitioner-society against the order dated 18-10-2005 passet) by the State Government, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly subi(iitted that subsequent to order dated liquidated and thereafter he has no instructions as to whether order of IJcjuidation has been challenged or not, if so, the result thereof. Since the very basis to ohatl^nge the order dated 18-10-2005 with .5 as a nodal agency ignonng the petitioner is wiped out, the issue rai^ed in this petjtion becomes academic. Therefore, this petition is finally cjisposed off reserving liberty to the ;iety still remains in existence. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava; Judge