C,‘a{wb}/ 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [C1 N0.Ap‘l49 /2oo7 / / :- /( Surendra Kumar Agrawal, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Hanumat Lal Agrawal (Power of Attorney Holder of Mrs Madhu Agrawal W/o Surendra Kumar Agrawal), R/o Ashish Willa, opposite EWS- 50, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur [C.G.]. PETITIONER COMPLAINANT VERSUS RESPONDENTS /1] Union of India, Department of the @\ L /Ii\ UAW 0’! Central Vigilance Commission, ,/ v\ 6\ @xg /@$& (xx; Bhawan, through Commissioner GPO Central ’CoriCk-A B1 plex, satarkata INA, Vigilance New @Xéo‘h Delhi. 2] The Chief Executive Officer, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, 5-9- 58/B, Parishrama Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad 500004. 3] The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office, “Oriental House” A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110001. 4] TheDivisional Manager, Oriental Insurance company Ltd. Divisional Office, near bus stand, Bilaspur [C.G.]. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:- As given above in the cause title PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS :- Respondent no. 1 is a statutory body setup by Union of India under law for keeping vigilant eye on the act of corrupt full activities being adopted by the Government Hal ~m% \J / f HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR M WRIT PETITION (C) No. 4244 of2007 PETITIONER : Surendra Kumar Agrawal. COMPLAINANT VERSUS ' RESPONDENTS : Union of IncEa & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ashok Swamakm, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union Of India/respondent No. 1. Shri Ashok Verma, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Shn' Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 & 4. ' e ORDER ORAL (Passed on 09 day of August, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to take recourse to appropriate forum, that may be available to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for other side have no objection. 3. It is ordered accordingly. 4. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with me aforestated liberty, ifso advised. l i l Satish K. Agnihotri l Judge l l I Sd/— v l