\^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (DivisionBench) Coram: Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. hflisc. Civil Case No. 195 of 2008 '£; ApDlicant Petitioner Respondents Vs. 1) 2) 3) Shakeel Lohani, age 40 years, S/o. Shri U.D. Khan Lohani, convener, C.G. Working Journalist Associatibn (Reg. Body), r/o. Ward No.03, Dr. Sammual Ward, near Rly. Crossing Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (CG). Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi. The State of Chhatti^garh, through the Chief Secretary, D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur (CG). The State ofChhattisgarh, through the Secretary, G.A.D/Home D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). (Application for the grant of permission for the withdrawal of the security amount deposited in W.P. (PIL) No.4781/2007) Present: Mr. Jameer Akhtar Lohani, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Standing council for Union of India/respondent No.1. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 21 State. ORALORDER (Passedon 12-8-2011) Per T.P. Sharma. J. B58 BS \^ By this petition, petitioner hasclaimed for refund ofearnest money ofRs.5000/- deposited in W.P. (P.I.L) No. 4871/2007. Shri J.A. Lohani.learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that fhe present petitioner has succeeded in the aforesaid petitioner (PIL)which has been disposed of vide order dated 14-1-2008 and in the aforesaid petitionnecessary direction has been issued by the respondents to return of security deposit of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner. On the other hand, Shri D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2/State opposed the petition and submits that no dtrection regarding retun of security deposit has been issued by the respondents in the aforesaid petition. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled to return of security amount. Shri Vivek Shrivastava,learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has also supported the submissions of learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3/State. We have heard learned counsel for the partiesand perused the orderofthe PIL. From perusal of the order of the aforesaid PIL, we do not find any direction regardingreturn ofsecurity amounttothe petjtioner. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Ra|ii