HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 261 of 2006 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS •"~t 1. Trishul Road Lines, Through the Partner, Vivek Agrawal, S/o Shri Kailash Agrawal, aged about 24 years, R/o Nehru Nagar, East Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). 2. Vivek Agrawal, S/o Shri Kailash Agrawal, Aged about 24 years, R/o Nehm Nagar, East Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). 3. Bajrang Lal Agrawal, S/o late Shri R.S. Agrawal, Age about 55 years, R/o Nehru Nagar (West) Bhilai, Disto-ict Durg (CG). 4. Chandra Mohan Agrawal, S/o Shri Brijmohan Sheel, aged about 42 years, R/o C-200, Street No. 18, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). 5. M/s Jai Jagdish Transport partnership Firm, Through the Partner, Shri Vishal Agrawal, S/o Kailash Agrawal, aged about 25 years, R/o 39/12, Nehm Nagar (West), Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). 6. Satya Narayan Agrawal, S/o of Shri Thakurji Das Agrawal, Aged about 47 years, R/o of Nehru Nagar, (West), Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). 7. Sandeep Bedi, S/o of Sb-i Surjeet Singh Bedi, aged about 39 years, R/o 120, Kothi No. 454/4, Ayodhya Nagar, Ring Road No. 1, Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through fhe Secretary, Deptt. of Transport, Mantralaya, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2. The South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. Through its Regional Sales Manager, Korba Area, Tahsil & Distt. Korba (CG). 3. The Regional Sales Manager, SECL, Gevra Area, Tehsil & Distt. Korba (CG). 4. Regional Sales Manager, SECL, Dipka Area, Tahsil & Distt. Korba (CG). 5. Tata Engineering and Locomotives Company (Telco), Through its Regional Sales Officer, Telco Office, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (CG). -^ ).'' Sahu (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SBLilQn'bleM^^atishK^AgnihotriLJ.l Present : Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. Shri Praveen Das, Advocates for the respondent No. 2,3 & 4. Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12th day ofNovember, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the similar petitions filed by the other parties, involving the same question of law, have been dismissed on 06.07.2006. He further submits that this petitic -may also be disposed ofin the same terms. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents do not controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as passed on 6-7-2006 in W.P.No.944/2006 (Ravi Ranjan Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and other connected matters. No order asto costs. 4. Consequently, MCW)P No. 226/06, application for grant of ad-interim writ, stand disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. ^nihotri Judge \f