BEFORE THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P, No, S'7 03 Of 2004. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^y w^y /^y Satish Kumar Jaiswal, son ofLate G.L. Jaiswal, aged about 65 years, Occupation Advocate and Oath Commissioner, resident ofat and P.0. Sakti, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) V E R S U S 1. K.A. Ansari, Advocate, ia High Court OfChhattisgarh at Bilaspur, resident of B-l, Priyadarshmi Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), 2. The secretary, S.A.R. Public School at village Rishabhtirth, Post OfiGce Barpalikala, TahsU Sakd, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), ^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETAILS OF PETITION :- T SIRSl^lfiFlhF tffwtlp <i1iif -sn^i g>*ff<t> ^.y !^'i *<1*ICTI fl»*<l<!|t ~5^ •*{WM<i, »xfly'l<o, R|<1iyy< ..<U<i:3^!o.:..aiA!a.^ '200 SfI^T •q^i' (ipf^q^q) TRTOT ^lft?F oil^fl 10-01-2005 Shri Pankaj Agrawal, oounsel Meard on admission. The petitioner, who is a Senitir Praotising Advooate at SaM:i has filed the instant petition. tlhat The case of the petitioner is R.LPatel, Seeretary of M.L.Jain HigtlerSecondary respondent No. 2 and one Surendra P-1, which.was replied to by responpent respondent !Mo. 2 vide reply dated 2$- Grievance .of the petitioner is not simply contradict the facts des] baseless allegatlons against the p| present petition has been filed for Annexure P-2 which aooording to the| After hearing counsel for referred tb by the petitioner 1 am maintainable as the petitioner has proper forum for redressal'of his grie' As a result, the petition is disrfiissed. 4)l<<I^zft^ flIN^f^ fsl<lt <Fq^cl< irsiRitisn^r for the petitioner. aspertheauthorizatiohofhis client, Shri Sohool, Sakti has sen/ed the pingh Rajput with a legal notioe ofAnnexure No. 1 according to the authorization of p-09-2004 as per Annexure P-2. that by the said reply the respondents did ;ribed in Annexure P-1 but levelied some ^titioner and his olient arid therefore, the qjjashing that part of ths reply to the notice, Ipetitioner is defamatory and contemptuous. t[\e petitioner and perusing the dqcuments 4f the view that the present petition is not |an altemative remedy of approaching the I'ances, ifany. -__ Sd/- DhirendTa Mishra Judge GRPRJ—FS/'S— ?7200( ^.50,000.