'iSSSSSSSSSSSi^SS ^- c ^(T.VOO? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0.'2-~73072006 ;^A PETITIONE1 ^^^^ Bishrampur, ^^.^>^' lc-G-] .-<^(€~^ Rajkumar Paswan S/o Shri Mahadev, aged about 35 years, R/o Bishrampur, P.S. Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja ^yy ^'^y ^A€sPONDENTS ^ ./' ^' ^•/cs-~. .^"'. ^ VERSUS (1) State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Home Department,D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.]. (2) South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through-ChiefGeneral Manager, [S.E.C.L.] Bishrampur, District Surguja [C.G.]. ^ ^(3) Station Officer, Police Station House, Bishrampur, District Surguja [C.G.]. PETITION_UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON No. 2730 of2006 PETmONER : RajkumarPaswan. VER8US RESPONDENTS : State ot'Chhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA 8B: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri, J. Present: Shri Jeet Patel, Advocate forthe Detitioner. Shii N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the . 1 & 3. ORI»ER(ORAL) (Passed on 30th day of June, 2010) 1. Leained counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the disputed Truck beahng registration No. CG-4-J-1782 chassis No. 373341 AYZ 701582, Engine No. 697 TC 42 AYZ 852900, was detained by the respondent No. 2-SECL at Ambika Coal Depot, Bishrampur. The matter was reported to the police aiid the petitioner has also filed a complaint under section 457 of fhe Code of Criminal Procedure before tlie Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur. The application was dismissed on 26.05.2006 (Annexure P/4) on the ground that the Truck was neither seized nor any offence was registered against the disputed Truck. Being aggrieved, fhe petitioner has filed the present petition seeking release of the trock and the compensation to the tune of Rs.32,200/- 2 . The petitioner, without taking recourse to statutory provisions of law, wherein the factual disputes can also be considered and decided, has preferred this petition undei' Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to release the disputed Truck to the petitioner and payment ofcompensation. ^^g^^ ^^:. 3. The finding of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, in his order dated 26.05.2006 (Annexure P/4) is that neither the disputed truck was seized nor any offence was registered. In view ofthe said fact, no vwit can be issued as no other documents have been produced to establish the tact that the Truck in dispute is still in the eustody ofthe respondent No. 2. Even otherwise, this Court has no wherewitlial to examine the wimesses and decide fhe disputed facts. 4. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed as not mamtainabie. i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit