@\ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'I—I'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) (C.G NO: ) bog? ./‘ OF 2008 PETLTIONE / Vinod Kumar Sahu Sor} of Late, Dukhiram Sahu, aged about 56 years, Resident of Village and Post Tanaud, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS State o Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Schooi Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Director, Public Instructions, r Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). The District Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The Block Education Officer, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pamgarh, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.). Smt. Kamla Bai Sahu e of Samaroo Ram Sahu, Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Khorsi, Janpad ‘R f Wif F . L ..... ‘ ' ' v 7........... **** ......,,... y w.- i {' ..... < . .‘.‘. é é g ‘ Panchayat Pamgarh, District .‘.‘ - i Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 3 . "”..... " V " . Nanhuram Khunte, Headmaster, Govt. District WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 INDIA i Primary School Khorsi, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). OF THE CONSTITUTION OF i i / ’\ i i i i i i PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR RIT PETITION (C) NO.5069 OF 2008 Vinod Kumar Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under A_iticie 226 of the Cionstitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS Present :- Shri P P Sahu Advocate forthe petitioner Shri P K Bhadurl Panel Lawyer forthe State ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 11‘“ day ofAugust 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner with regard to alleged irregularity in Mid Day Meal Scheme a case was registered by the Sub DiVISional Officer (Revenue) Pamgarh District Janigir- Champa being case No 57/2009 From the order sheets it appears . that there is ceitain misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 3. ’At this juncture, learned Counsel appearing' for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is'different. 4. Be that as it may, without recording any finding on the part of the petitioner or othenivise, the Court, on the basis of facts as alleged, cannot direct any enquiry. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a fresh representation/ application to the appropriate authority, if so advised, and the said authority shall consider andvdecide the same, in accordance with J, Iaw and on its own merits. ’1.”R Sd/— ,Satish K. Agnihotri Judge