/'n.w •^-" W THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ( CG ) WP -'7-3.A-2001 V-" PETITIONER': 1. The State ofChhatisgarh Through Secretary', Mmistry ofHome afFairs, Govt.ofChattisgarh, Mantralaya 2. The Superintendmg ofPolice, Durg. Versus RESPONDENTS : Dilip Kumar Kashyap S/oMoti SinghKashyap, Ex-Constable, r/o Police line, Newri, Distt. Damoh (MP) . '^Ky:' •-w'/ y" vy ^^y \- .f<y ^ .•sff K:f-: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA XI-HC-22 3^ •^IWId<<, ®T(1«'IS,|s|C1l«y J?? NO> ^' f ^D V(Wvt\ shKI* ••••••••••••••••••••• ^ ' 200 3TI^!T^T R-fi+sn^r SDtfiti {lf5cT 3tlSOT TOIRIT'Hfta' «bi'iil!'('fl-i'<i'<i'i)'ffte^<Ri«i< ^Sll^TSfl^T DB; Hon'bte Shn V.K. Shrivastav! & Hon'ble -Shri Dhrirendra Mishra, JJ Shri N.K. Agrawal, Dy. Advocjate General for the State/ petitioners. None for the respondent. The case is listed for orders dn default. Upon perusal of the recor<j it appears that on 8-5-2001 petitioners were directed to pay process fee and cofties of Vne memo of petition \i'/ithin three days, for issuance of notice. Again on 7-7-2Q03 petitioners were directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days, but the)} 12-9-2006, on the request of the pj fresh steps to ser\'e notice on the r4 •did not pay the same. Vide 'order dated 'titioners, three weeks time was grantec to take spondent. On 9-11-2006 finally fbur v»'eekstime was granted to petitioners for con|ipliance of this Court's order dated 12-9-2006. Thereafter the case was listed on 1 -12-2006 and as per fte directions ofthis Couri on the said date, the case is iisted tojjay. Number of opportunities ha\| serve notice on the respqndent, but| not take any steps to compiy with th^ Shri Agrawal, Dy. Advocate Shri Vinay hlarit, Dy. Advocate Genj adjouming the case for coupte ofda^; Today the case is not lis(ed for any hearing on merit, but listed for consideration on the default alread^ caused by the petitioners; therefore, it is not e been given to the petitioners to tske steps to it is apparent that since 7-7-2003 petitioners did orders ofthisCourt. peneral, submiis this case has been allotted tQ >ral, who is unwell today, therefore, he prays for necessary that Deputy Advocate q when the Court considers the breachl Petitioners did not heed non-compliance of the Court orders ^neral Shri Vinay hlarit, should remain present lcommitted by the petitioners. 1:0 the Court's order. As a result of their |>etition is pending, therelbre, the same is !iable to be dismissed for non-compliance offie orders passed by this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in default. Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra ('ft^^fisT^)