^^\^^ @ ^M^-I r pKyf!l ^iai^LC OCil^^ IN THE ^N'BLE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATUTOE AT BIIASPUIl (C.Q.) ^ Petitioner: ^ .<&'^; ^y' .^A •' ^ ^ ^'\^r' ..••''' ^ '^y WP (C) No. ^^^ of 2010 Shatrughan Kumar Chaurasia, S/0 Lc.te Kaluram Chaurasia, Aged cibout 43 yrs, Maa Durga Pooja Samagri Dukan, Chhatt.isgarh Subzi Mandi, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Distt - Durg (C.G.) Vers^s Respondents: / (1) The Union . of India, '^k^'< Minister of Steel, New Delhi. . ; (2) The Managing Director^ Bhilai Steel Plant (SAIL), Bhilai, Distt - Durg (C.G.) ^(3) The GM, Town Administration Department, Bhilai Steel PFanfc (SAIL), Bhilai, Distt - Durg (C.G.) /(4) Sri S. Chandra S/0 Not Known, AGM (TS-Shops), Town Administration Deparfcment, Bhilai Steel Plant (SAIL), Bhilad., Distfc - Durg (C.G.) ^ ^ Writ petiti.pn under J».rticle 226 of the constitution <^f India ^ .^^^ ^ y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.4557 OF 2010 'PElinQMER Shatrughan Kumar Chaurasia Versus ^ 'M RESPONDENTS The Union of India & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnjhotri, J. Present:"" Shri R.B. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Fouzia Mirza. Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of india. Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.2 & 3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on fhis 7th day 6f September, 2010) 1; By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the communication dated 16/07/2010 (Annexure P/4) by which the respondent Steel Authority of India Limited (for short "SAIL") rejected the representation of the petitioner. 2 Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitjoner is running a pooja samagrishop in the name and styie of "Maa Durga Pooja Samagri Dukan1? on the land in question sipce last two decades. The said land was allotted by the State Govemment to the respondent/SAIL for development of township. According to the petitioner, in the survey list dated 04/05/2000 the petitioner's name find ptace at serial No. 98 A. Thereafter, his name was struck off from the saicl list. Against the said action/the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22/05/2000 and requested for allotment of' shop at new place. When no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioner preferred a petJtion before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 3578 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 17/06/2010 l^fi ^ Gowri (Annexure P/2)with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, the petitioner placecl the order before the respondents along with legal notice on 02/06/2010, which wa^s rejected by the respondent/SAIL in an iltegal and arbitrary manner and without assigning the cogent reason. Thus, this petition. 3 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pl€}adings and thedocuments appended thereto. In compliance of the order dated 17/06/2010 passed by this Court in W.P (C) No. 3578 of 2008, the respondent/SAIL again considered the case of the petitionerfrom all angles in its letter and spirit and fouhd that the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of tjnauthorized occupants prepared by the survey team. The petitioner has not produced any document except the self-same statement to the effect that at any point of time the narne of the petitioner was in the list of unauthorized occupants. Thus, the contention ofthe petitioner canhot be countenanced. The petitioner has failed to prove his case. Thus, the impugned action of the respondent SAIL is just, proper and does not warrant any interference of this Court. 4 In the result, the writ petition^being bereft of merit is dismissed. No order asto costs. i Sd/- 1 SatishK.Agnihotri 1 Judge