Chhotelal Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 569 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                               NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               WPCR No. 280 of 2017

     Chhotelal Sonkar, S/o Ramkishun, aged about 63 years, R/o Camp-2, Near
      Hanuman Mandir, Sharda Para, Sonkar Samaj, Bhilai, Civil and Revenue
      District Durg (C.G.).


                                                                         ---- Petitioner

                                      Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs
       (Police), New Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur (C.G.).


   2. Director General of Police, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G).


   3. Inspector General of Police, Range Durg, District Durg (C.G.).


   4. Superintendent of Police, Durg, Civil & Revenue District Durg (C.G.).


   5. District Magistrate, Durg, Civil and Revenue District Durg (C.G.).


   6. Station House Officer Police Station Chhawni, Bhilai, Civil and Revenue
       District Durg (C.G.).


   7. Mohd. Ashif, Partner/Owner in the Firm of Munthana Foods Pvt. Ltd.,
       Registered Address of the Company 1 C, La Place, Opp.- Sarvoar Portico
       Hotel, Shahnajaf Road, Hazaratganj, Lukhnow-226001.


   8. Mohd. Farid, Partner/Owner in the Firm of Munthana Foods Pvt. Ltd.,
       Registered Address of the Company 1 C, La Place, Opp.- Sarvoar Portico
       Hotel, Shahnajaf Road, Hazaratganj, Lukhnow- 22601.


   9. Mr. D. Basu Manager of the Firm of Munthana Foods Pvt. Ltd., Registered
       Address of the Company 1 C, La Place, Opp.- Sarvoar Portico Hotel,
       Shahnajaf Road, Hazaratganj, Lukhnow- 22601.


                                                                   ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, G. A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

24.06.2021

1. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that he may be granted

permission of the Court to withdraw the instant petition with a liberty to

recourse the remedy available to him as per the judgment passed by

the Court in WPCR No. 09/2016.

2. Considering the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner,

permission is granted to the petitioner to withdraw the instant petition

with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner.

3. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

amita