1 Singka Baum @ ‘IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHA'ITISGARH) w. P. Ngfmar OF 2005 PETITIONER Rajender Singh (Arora), S/o Shri Sujan Singh, aged about 52 years,Corporator, Municipai Corporation Bhilai, R/o MIG 10, Viashali Nagar, Supela, Bhilai Nagar,District Durg [Chhattisgarh] VERSUS / RTS ESPONDEN K 1 'Anusuéhi't CommISSIoner Ja£i Adim Vikas, Jati tatha Ravi Shankar Vishwavidyalaya Parisar, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] Jati Praman Patra Uchha Stariya Chhanbin Samiti, Through its Secretary, Ravi Shankar Vishwavidyalaya Parisar, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] Shri Samay La! Sahu, S/o Shri Mahnguram Sahu, Resident of Santoshipara, Camp—Z, Bhiiai District Durg [Chhattisgarh] Shri Rama Vishwakarma, S/o Shri Chetram Vishwakarma Resident of Baikunthnagar, Camp—Z, Bhiiai, District Durg [Chhattisgarh]. K’” 5. The Sut) Divisional Officer, Chhawm, District Durg, (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: The petitioner, above—named, most respectfuiiy submits as under: cw . . XI—HC-78 EW,WI§,W Wm ANKP; . mm. o9.2acy,a1 200$ Wm (W) Shri Manindra Shrivastava with Shri Ashish Shrivastava learned counsel fOV the petitioner. Shri N.K. Vyas Iearned cou wsel for respondents 3 and 4. Shri Sanjay S. Agr’awal GA for the respondents 1, 2 and 5. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2, a committee constituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patti and another Vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development, Thane and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 is conducting an i iry regarding the caste of the petitioner. without following the detailed dir ctions given in paragraph 13 (4,5 and 6) of the said judgment. He furth r submits that there was no material available on record before the rector on the basis of which the inquiry can be initiated by a High Level mmittee i.e. respondent No.2 and this ‘ in fact is one kind of harassmen and in the aforesaid circumstances the inquiry pending against the petiti ner is liable to be quashed. On the other hand counse for respondents 3 and 4 submits that as per the directions of the Suprem Court in the above referred matter, the committee was constituted and n the basis _of the report of the Director regarding the caste of‘the petiti ner theaggne: is being conducted. He further submits that the petition r has all the opportunities to raise the grievances before the said com ittee which shall be decided in terms of mi n ‘ i o WWW WWEWW tenements mmabaaan étmm q ;‘\ ;‘\ 4.1.2007: XI—HC—78 gamma, m, 13"WGEIE mm ”‘NLQ‘Q‘E‘a'w'J‘ W; 200i WW (W) WW§WW WWW ,Z# %a%tran%a the judgment of the Supreme Court referred above and the inquiry cannot be quashed at the outset. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is seized of the inquiry against the petitioner and the petitic ner is participating in the said inquiry. Grievances raised in this petition tray be raised by the petitioner before the committee and in that event the committee woutd be obiiged to follow the procedure prescribed in the judgment of the Supreme Court referred above and only after adopting the 'said procedure some order has to be passed. ’i With these observations the petition is disposed of. Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra Judge N P.T.O.