kia 1 iia;.i ii u u di uA.: f-\v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH sBILASPUR. Wnt PetitipnJfLNo,. 1712of_20Q9 Petitioner Diaeshbhai Raojibhai Patel (HUP) a proprietaiy concem Prop. aud Karta Dmeshbhai Raojibhai Patel,S/o Raojibhai aged about 61 yeara, resident of House No. 36/569, Byron Bazar, Civfl Liues, Raipur l.,"i • (C.G.) ' Versus Respondents 1. Deputy Coinnuissioiier, Comiaercial Tax Vanijyik Kar Bhavan, Civfl Liaes, Raipur. Assistaut Comiaercial Tax Officer, Ctrcle III, Raipur (C.G.) State of Cbliattisgarh fhrough Secretaiy Departinent of Commercial Tax D.K.S. Maatealaya Bhavaa, Raipur (C.G.) 2. 3. fWrit Petition under Article 226 of fhe Constitution of ladia) (SB: HouTale Shri Satish K. AgnihotriJ.) Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the i-espondents. Q R D E^L (Passed on this lat Day ofApril, 2009) 1. Leamed counsel appearuig for fhe petiti.oner submits tbat at fh.c relevant time the petitioner was not haviug the Fona No. E-1 ia his possession. Now fh.e petitioner is ia possessioii oftfae Form No. El. Therefore, the petitioner laay be pemutted to withdraw fhis petition with Uberty to tnake aa. application to fh.e conceraed authorily, explamiag the delay and non-fumishing of fhe Fonn No. E-l at the relevant tuae, which inay be considered aad decided by fhe conceraed auftiority on its owajgierits, ui accordaace with law. 2. Mr. Bakshi subiiiits fhat if an appUcatipn, as stated above, with explauation for delay aud reasons for not producing fhe Form No. E-l is niade to fhe conceraed authorily, fhe same sbaU be consid<Aed aud decided on its own merits, in accordance with law. 3. In view of the foregoiug, accordiug to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothiag survives in this matter for adjudication. 4. In view of the above fh.e petition stauds disposed of vrith fhe above-stated Uberty. Sd/- SatishlCAgnihotri Thakur •-—L—^ Judge:''