^y ^ IK THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ViRIT PETIIION N0. | °1 ^OF 2001 PETITIQNERS ; 1. I^rmeshwar Kumar S/o Sakhiramal aged 34 years. 2. Aisar Hussain s/o GamKhar Hussain aged 49 years. ; 3. Siahid Zamal s/o Hazaruddin, aged 35 ...'? , years. ..•^' 4. Haraid Khan s/o Anmad Khan,age<3 42 years ^•••^.••'v' 4. Haraid Khan s/o "nmad Khan,aged 42 ye ^./•y'.-'l^'?'^ 5' Jasmuddin s/o la-be Jaimu3din,aged 67 \'o-^'t^'^ ••••'^'L.^'-'' ^•sy \^ years. 6. Bashir iSusrat s/o late fibdul'Bahman aged 52 years. 7. Suresh Kumar s/o Kishore Shri.vastava, ' aged 42 years. S» feyeed an.is Ahmad s/o Maulana Bais Ahmad, aged 34 yearg. 9. Mirza Sazid teig s/o tate Mirza Sazzad,aged 34 years. 10. K.P.Oiaterjee s/o S.P.Chaterjee aged 42 years. 11. Sint. Sinder Kawc w/o K.ildeep Singh, aged 46 years. 12. an-b. Gouri mi w/o KSliram Kevafc,. aged 47 years. 13. Salim Aunad s/o Fakim Ahraad,aged 43 years. 14. 3ieiKh Hafiz S/o larimuddin 15. Iqbal Malik s/o M.A.Malik,aged 38 ysars. 16. Dufaldeen Bai througb Ramra-fcan aged 67 years. •s/ '•f ffllltll 8: 02 ;; 17. Siahzad Khan s/o Kadar Khan, aged 27 years. 18. Mangal Prasad s/o Nathuram Sirivas,aged 45 years. 19. Madhav Brasad s/o Khemchand,aged 35 years. 20. Pundalik Bao s/o Balkrishan.aged 53 years. 21. Kuldeep Singh g/o Inder Singh, aged 47 years. 22. Pramod Bubey s/o late Gajanand Dubey.aged 40 years. 23. Sii-t. Meaia Dubey w/o Surendra Dubey, aged 36 years. (All shop-keepers, New Bus Stand Kaipiir (c.G.). Versus RESPONDSNIS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh,through the Seeretary Departmen-fc of veter Resources, D.K.Building, RAIPUR. 2. Canal Seputy Ctollector/A3ditional Tehsildar, t-j&ter Resources Division No.l, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Municipal Corporation, Raipur through its Commissioner,Mianicipal Corporation Building, Baipur (C.G.) WRI'P PETITION UNDSR ^RIICLES 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA TOR ISSUING A WRII OF MANDAMUS , CERTIGBARI OR ANY OTHEE SUITABLE WRIT,ORDER OR DIRECTION . ...03. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETmON No. 1016 of2001 : Parmeshwar Kumar & Others. VERSUS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmmON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me 8hn Satish K. Agmhotn, J. Present: Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate forthe petitioners. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondesut No. 1&2. Shri KashifShakeeI, Advocate forthe respondent No. 3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 28tn day of August, 2010) Amit 1. Leamed counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that since there is a process of settlement between the petitioners and the Municipal Corporation, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to take appropriate steps as provided under the provisions oflaw or to make application to tfae authorities concemed for settlement ofthe dispute. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for other side have no objection. 3. It is ordered accordingly. 4. ^Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforestated liberty, ifso advised. _^—— -—--——- Sd/- SarisbK.Agnihotri Judge