^t^]/2^iM--^^Him:WTfiT^ W.P. Se ; of 1998 Peti-tionersi 1. M/s. BaynQndIiiaited, (Gement Bivislon), 5e>pal Nagar, Tahsil and District Janjgir & Ghaapa, H.P. Througl!i its Manager (Legal), Slirl Bipaiakar Sen, . Aged about 4-3 years, S/e Sfari Santimay Sen, B/o 14./216, Tinoba Nagar, BiLaspBr, M.P. 2. Dipankar -Sen, Son of Sliri Santimay Sen, Aged aboat !+3 years, Sbarebo.Lder of M/s. BayfflOBlLtd 5/o 14/216, Tinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, M.?. VersQS Bespondentss 1. State of.Hadbya Pradesh, Througti the prlneipal Secrstary, a-tt&s, Departaent of Cocmerotal &ovt. of Hadhya Pradesh; Vallabh Bhawan, Bbopal, M.P. The Geaimissioner (Bevenue), Biiaspar Division, Bllaspur, M.P. . Ihe Golleetor ofStamps/ Distrie-t Registrar, Goaposite Buildiag, ' Distrlct Bilaspur, M.P. The Sub Begistrar, Appointed.as Bagistering Offioer uaaer Eegis-bration Aot, 1908, Tatisj.1 Janjgir, I . Dl.strietJanjgir & Chaa^a, [ Ifa.dbyaPraaesti. 1 ./;' K ~^:t i7v. ^% « ^-) •\~^ r 5. Sfari IiaxmiStant, Aged aboat 4-0 years, S/o Sfciri Babulal, B/0-VJ.llage Eiradi, Tahsil & B.lstrxet J'anjgir & Ghampa, Madtiya Prad.esti. S' UBII. ESIITIOM UNBBE AETISIiBS 226 AND 227 OF 'EHB GOHS'riTUIION Gff IHDIA ^ HIGH COLTRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL.45PUR WRTT FETmON No. 2348 of 1998 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS M/s. Ra^mond Limited & Another. VERSUS State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others. sl WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE coNSTrrunoN OF INDIA SB: Hon''Me Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri, J. Present: Sfari B.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4. ;;tJI;lt ORDER(QRAL) (Passed on 08"' day of Novemba-, 2010) I. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appeal prefeiTed by the petitioner before the Board ofRevenue, has already been allovved by order dated 31,03.2000 (Annexure R/l), as is evident from the copy ofthe order, filed by the respondent NTo. 1 to 4. Thus, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. 2. Leamed couiisel appeaiing for other side does not controvert flie above submission. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infi-uctuous. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge