C^ 1^5 IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUOICATURE AT B1LASPUR WRIT PETITION (c) N0. <^<, o ^^) ^se^^ ^ys^ ...•••G<?^>-" ^yy ^<3°^--' ^' AA/s Indusco Plastics Private Limited, through its AAanager & (1---"",. Authorized 5iqnatory 5hri Anil Kumor Tiwari. A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its reqistered office at 15, Brabourne Road (2nd Ftoor), Kolkata-700 001 and havinq its plant at Plot No.8 & 9, Sector- C, Industrial Area Sondwnra (Urls), District Raipur (C6) RESPON&ENTS : l.M/s Vinayak Extrusions Limited, through its Director Shri Anil Kumor Mal, having its plant and office at Part of Plot . No.9, Sector-C, Industrial Area fiondwara (Urla). District Raipur (C6). Z.Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corpor-otion Limited, through its Executive Director, Life Insurnnce Corporation Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C6) :TITION UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION 0F INOIA e'^'.e'p'ss,,^ ^ 10 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ('C) No. 5150 of2010 PETITIONER : M/s Indusco Plastics Private Limited VERSUS RESPONDENTS : M/s Vinayak Extrusions Limited & Another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri J.D. Bajpai, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 18th day of November, 2010) 1. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2. At the very outset, Shri Bajaj, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the sole grievance of the petitioner is fhat some portion of land allotted to the petitioner was encroached by the respondent No.l. He further submits that the allotment ofthe plot to the respondent No.l has been cancelled. 3. In response, Shri Siaha, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No.l, submits that there was no encroachment so far as the land of the petitioner was concemed. The cancellation of allotment in favour of the respondent No.l is under challenge before the appellate authority. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 allotted the plots to the persons and it is the responsibility of the respondent No.2 to ensure that there will no encroachment. 5. In view of the above submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the respective parties, nothing remains in this petition for adjudication and no order is necessary. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge