fl; ©. LN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASHJR Writ Petition No2-^03/2006 iENCti PETITIONER /^ -y ^ ^y -^7^ .^' ^/ RESPOHDENre ^y£!si^ t/'^'/ .R. F\.^ ^^^ \^A ii+1r^ ''^y-^—^^SMy :%s3,L?'vsy M/s Kailash B^neeriag Conipany Ltd. Rajnandgaon, A coinpany Registered luider the Coaipaniea Act, 1956, having its reglstered ofBce at 3, Lata Kuig, Zaobawadi, Thakurdwar, Chanu Road, Munibai and Corporate Office at 57-58 Vardhm.an Nagar, O. E. Road, Eajnandgaon, tliroug^i its autfaorized repreaentathfls, Pramod Agarwal, S/o Sfari T. R. Agarwal, aged about 37 yeara, R/o Vardhiaaane^ar, TahsU and District- Rajnandgaon(C.G.). -Versus- 1. Chbattisgarta State Induatrifll Developtaent Corporatiou Ltd. (CSIDC), a company incorporated under fhe Tndifln Conipaniea Act, 1956, fhrough its Mnnflging Director, L.I.C. Buildir^, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.). Madhya Pradesh Fiaancial Corporation (MPFC), a Corporatioa estabUshed under the State Finaucial Corporation Act, 1951 through its Managiag Dtrector, Fuiance House, Agra Bombay Road, Indore (M.P.) 2. "^- •""^ ^ f' .'• ;y '<••' ^fc.^^ ... ^ .+• flQOT PETITION UNDER ARnCLE J^. 226/227 OP 'EHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA POR ISSUANCE OP A WRH* IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBmON, CERTIORARI ETC.OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. aia HI6H COURT OT CHHATTIS6ARH: BILASPUR Singte Banch: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Agnihotri. J. W.P. No. 2709 of 2006 Petitioner Versus Respondents M/s Kailash &igineering Company Ltd. Chhatf-isgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. ond onother Present; Mr. Pr<xshont Jaiswal, Senior counset with Mr. Ali Asgar, coun%l for the petitioner. Mr. Sttnjay K. Agr<iMia\, counsel for the responden-t No. 1. ORDER ind O'assed on Z"" Ooy of Mardi, 2007) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner aibmtts that the petitioner does not want to press any ground except that the qsplication dated 21-12-2005 (Annexure P/9) pending before respondent No. 1 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. be decided in accordance with !aw, on its merit within the stipufated time. 2. It is orcbred accordingly. 3. The respondent No. 1 is directed to decide "the pending iipplication (Supra) within a period of four weehs from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on its merit. pT 4. The writ petition is accordmgly dismissed as withdrawn wi-th the above stated liberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 5ubhash k '%