C ’g‘QwOiK’ % N THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATU' HHATTISGARH AT BILASPU W ( I % 7 I f C R 1 rit Petition T) No. 1 of 200 n ;the matt‘er o E i‘ r ‘ : / ) S Pki (1 pin acagng . Limited a compan incorporated unde e provsons ofte Companie c 1956 situated at Plo 61 -62, Sector-C, Industrial Area irgii, Biaspur 495004 (C.G. hrough its Managing Directo amav:tar Agrawai Slo Lat agmohandas Agrawai, grawi Bhawan, Vidya Na ilaspr .. y r r : th ii h s I At t No. , Stt l ) t r R e J Aa gar, BU (CG) amaviar Agrawai S/o La agmohan Das AraWa esident of Agrawai Bhavan ya agar, ilasur C.G. anaging Direco pin Pckain Limit ersu '(1 Stat roug irecor nustr, '.l.C. éommercial Comle vesh Bhavan, econd :Floo 'L px Ni) S r Pandri, aiu , R't te J gl r , Vid N Bp () M tr S agg ed Vs /) e Levei Committee thh Dt Idies Rpr tae o attisga hrough () sey a ecrtar Dpartm nt‘fComme‘rcia ax. D.K<-.,S,»., Bhiavag antralaya, Raipur ecretar epartment of Commerc nd industrie V a s .K.s. Bha ‘ ‘n,Ma;_ntria a‘iburmcr e I JRE / (2) St f Chhrh t ‘ ~ e or , T h. ‘ ' M (C G) L, Sy, ‘ ' ' .-,_D e D ;ija,_ Ri * / E .r‘ \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlsGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bie 5PM satish K. Agnihofri, J. W.P‘ (T) No. 17 0f 2007 Pe'l’E'l'ioners : spin Packaging Limi'red and anofher Versus Respondenfs : Sfafe Level CommiHee and ofhers Present Mr. Neelabh Dubey, counse! for fhe pa‘rH'ioners. Mr. 5.K. Mishm, Panel Lawyer for 'rhe 5fa‘re/ responden'rs No. 2 and 3. ORDER (Passed o?! 14*“ Day of February, 2007) 1. According +0 +he learned counse! appearing for The pefifioners, fhe pe?i1’ioner$ have moved we Appeilafe Au'rhori‘ry impugning fhe cer‘fifica‘l‘e dafed 14-7-2005 (Annexure P-B) as we" as fhe Ie‘Her dafed 24-2-2006 (Annexure P-9), which are pc : "’f‘ considera'rion for fhe las'f eighf momhs. 2. Learned counsel appearing for fhe pefi'rioners seeks permission of ‘H‘iis Cour‘i 'i‘o' withdraw ‘i'his pefi'l'ion wi‘i’h iiberfy 'l’o pursue 'rhe appeai pending before Appella'i'e Au'rhorify. He fur'rher submifs Thai a direction be issued fo The Appello'fe Aufhorify for deciding 'rhe appeal wi1'hin fhe sfipula'l'ed +ime. 1+ is ordered accordingly. 1- 3. The Appella're Au‘rhorify is directed To cansider and decide ‘Hae pending appeal wifhin a period of eighf weeks from the da're of receipt of a copy of fhis order. 4. In fhe mean'fime, no caercive sfeps be faken Ti” dispose! of The appeal, pending before 'rhe Appeiiafe Aufhorify. 5. The wri'i‘ pe+i+ion is accordingiy dismissed as wifhdmwn wiih ihe above sfafed iiberi-y. No under as To cos‘is. 8d!— _Satish Ki Agnihotri I ‘Judge Subhash