Vi ^' a) t X- ^l^ ^.:; -:"• k IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.PJCtNO. <^?>52- /2009 PETITIONERS r^.e^ '^^^- ^ 1. Holaram S/o Gopal Das, Aged about 65 years, R/o Station Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Prabhumal Gurumukh Das Kukreja S/o Late Shri Ludramal Kukreja, Aged about 63 years, R/o Station Road, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Urban Adininistration & Development, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) .2. Raipur Municipal Corporation, Through- Its Commissioner, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^^. ^ar'^, ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1974 OF 2009 PETITIONER Pannalal Pandya Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh &Another WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1980 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Inderjeet Ghai & Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2352 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Holaram & Another Versus RE8PONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another WRIT PETITION (0 N0.2353 OF 2009 PETITIONER Smt. Gulaba Bai RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another And WR1TPETITION (C) N0.2354 OF 2009 PETITIONER Natthulal Pujari Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. £€ Present:- Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Adv. General for the State. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the respondent Municipal Corporation. 1. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 20th day ofAugust, 2010) At the very outset, Shri Otwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the facts and question of law involved in ./".-t-^^ l/3J the present batch of matters are the same, which was under consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Jeev Rakhan Pansari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another and other connected matters. Learned counsel further submits that the present petitions may be disposed of in the same terms. Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing for the State and Shri Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Municipal Corporation, have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and further submit that the case of thepetitioners would be considered and dealt with in the same terms of decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Jeev Rakhan Pansa/-/ (supra). In view offoregoing, according to the learned Qpunsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in these petitions for adjudication. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. However, it is made clear that if some informatjon is required from the petitioners by the respondents, the petitioners have to produce the same before the authorities concerned. _ — Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge 1.1 1 W.€No.116of 2009 (decided on 26-4-2010) .;?:;'^o