In a review petition filed challenging an order in W.P.(C) No. 5975 of 2007, the High Court dismissed the petition as it had become infructuous and was not pressed by the petitioner.
Petition dismissed as not pressed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH l
‘xl Wight ileum
Review Petition No. [2009 Deepak Khapeker, S/o Shri Shriwan Khapeker, aged about 38 years, R/o Quarter No. 4~ A, Street No. 52, Sector— 8, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
Versus RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, General Administration Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantrayala, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Deputy Coilector, Durg (CG) 3) Additional chief Vigilance Officer Bhiiai Steel Plant Bhilai Durg C G
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2009 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF MY LORD JUSTICE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRAJI IN W.P.(C) No..5975l2007
WMHIGH COURTDF CHHAT'HSGARH AT B!LASPUR‘
Division Bench : Hon’ble Shri Suni! Kumar Sinha & Hon'hle Shri R.N. Chandrgkar: JJ. WReview Petition No. 41 of 2009
Petitioner
Resgondents
Vs.
Deepak Khapekar
The State of Chhattisgarh and other.
Aggiication for review the order dated 23.03.2009 _
Present:
forMr.theA}ayPetitioner.Mishra, Advocate on behaif of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate StatelrespondentsMr. R.K. Mishra, Deputy Advocate Genera! for the 1 and 2. ML Shailendra Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.3
O R D E R
(04.12.2013)
1 . Mr. Mishra submits that the review petition has became infructuous, therefore, he is not pressing the same and 'rt may be dismissed accordingiy.
\njay
Deepak Khapekar
The State of Chhattisgarh
Sunil Kumar Sinha
Rangnath Chandrakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
