Jharkhand High Court
M/S Indukala Electroplating Wo vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd on 29 October, 2015
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3129 of 2008
1. M/s Indukala Electroplating Works through its proprietor
Ashwani Kumar Singh son of late Braj Mohan Singh, resident
of 151, Lohanchal Complex, Sector-XII, having its office at II-D/79
Bokaro, Industrial Area, Balidih, P.O. and P.S. Balidih, Dist. Bokaro
2.M/s Bokaro Laminating Industry through its proprietor Pawan Kumar
Gupta son of R.R. Gupta having office and residence at 1/A-60/1,
Bokaro Industrial Area, Balidih, P.S. and P.O. Balidih, Dist. Bokaro
3.M/s Bokaro Polylam Industries through its proprietor Kailash Gupta
son of R.R. Gupta having office and residence at Plot No. 1-A/60 (P),
Bokaro Industrial Area, Balidih, P.S. and P.O. Balidih, Dist. Bokaro
4.M/s Kamakhya Packing Private Ltd through its Manager Sanjay
Singh son of late R.B. Singh, resident of 364, Cooperativer Colony,
Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, having office at Phase-10/C-5(P), Bokaro
Industrial Area, Balidih, P.O. P.S. Balidih, District Bokaro
5. M/s Polytex through its proprietor Satendra Kumar Sinha son of
Shri M.P. Singh, having its office and residence at C-16, Phase-I,
Bokaro, Industrial Area, Balidih, P.O. P.S. Balidih, District Bokaro
... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Limited through its Managing Director,
Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro,
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro cum Managing Director, Bokaro
Industrial Area Development Authority, Bokaro Steel City
3.M/s I.I.W. India Limited. ... ... ... ... ... Respondents
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
M/s Sheela Prasad, Shilpi John,
Naveen Kumar, Ankit Vijay, Sudhansu Kr.
Deo
6/29.10.2015Sri M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate submits that the work has already been completed on 31.05. 2010, thus, this writ application has become infructuous.
On the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ application.
Permission accorded.
Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Prashant Kumar, J.) Binit