RESPONDENTS IN THE HI’GH COURTVOF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR SELF.) mp. No.” $W§é /1999 i'l‘ PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 227 OF THE CONsTITUTz: OF INDIA :1. Raipur Truck Owners Association, _ Through its Secretary Harcharan Singh Sahani, S/o. late Shri Raghubeer Singh Sahani, aged about 50 years, R/o. Gurunanak Hagar, Raipur (M.P.) /‘ ‘ M/s. Appollo Transport Corporation f} Through its Prof). 'Harcharan Singh Sahani, R/o. Gurunank ‘Nagar, Raipur' Dist. Réipun (14.1%.) Mqhd9 Abdul Quadir, S/O- lateWShri Abdul’ garmr, agedraboujc ‘95‘ years, R/o. behind Gujrati Complex, Moudhapara, ‘Raipur, Dist. Gupta Hat-(mares, through its Prop. Shri Pradeep Kumar Gup‘Eax ONT r l 5. 4D Raipur 1 S/o.v late Shri M.P. Gupta; aged about 50 years, R/o. Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (MLP 'Ashwini Kumar Gupta, S/Q.’ Shri M.P‘, mpta, aged about #8 yrsv R/o. VJalvihar Colo’ny,’ Raipur, Dist, Raipur (MIPJ VERSUS :1. .)’ lat e Raipur Development Authority, a body incerporated under Section . . .. 2 / « PETITIONERS / g f -2 ‘38 of the Nagar, Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, having its office at G.E. Road, Raipur, ' Dist . Raj.pur (M.P .) The Chairman, Raipui‘ Development Authoring Raipur (M.P.) 5. Tehsildar A (Recovery Officer) g Raipur DeveJ/.o)pment Auth’arity, Raipur (M;P .) Es 226/227 OF THE coNsTxwTmN PETITION mum. ARTICL { OF 1NDVIA FGR ISSUANCE OF AN AEPROPRIATE WRIT; ORDER oa' DIREcTION ETC. i 7 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agihotri, J. W. P. No. 3026 of 1999 Petitioners Raipur Truck Owners Asso. Raipur and Ors. Versus Respondents Raipur Development Authority and two others. Shn' Goufam Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioners. Shri B.P. Shanna, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate for the Iespondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (12h May, 2006) 1. LA. No. 50 15/2006, this is an application for Withdrawal of the writ petition. Leaxned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection, if the application is allowed. 2. In View of the averments made in the application, the application is ordered, as prayed for. 2. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. Sdl- i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ?