& THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR. -§E BILA$PURu mama. _2221 /oz. —~-n o--n- -q-u-c- .-— ggggégggg : D.R. Dayal S/o Igate Shri U.D. Dayal aged 53 years, R/o. €1v11 Elna, arms (chhattisgarh) . 2/5. §g§ggggggg§ s (lgfyswte of Chhattisgarh w Through ~ Pdngiple secregary Waw and Eegiaiature Department. D.K. Building, RAIPUR (C.G .) . ”(2) Distt. and SeSSion Judge. DURG . (3) Chief Judicial magistrate, DURG.’ (4) President. Bar Association. Burg. (5) Secretary. Baa Association. Burg. m1? PE'rrrmN mgwgawrcng zzgffz7 a? 'rgg coms'rx'm'rmm EAW OF INDIA. M Particular£ of the petitiOner ~ Astgiven in cause title. Particulm‘s cf the Respondents - As given in cause title. mu...“ contd. . .2 ma E WW/ 1i $4679? 0/9 02 € 424? &, ,V 5W/4é Cw73:%% %€/Z @fdhJ/y [gé/ / a? gay/z? {mg/é/ilw , @- #x gm??? W /3//0/o / #mq WW? _mm wewg 2W F/fO g gkgmgv“ wg §w@m% Q CA4 WHQ Banch XE—HC-22 ? 3! a a?) $§?.i Q1 §, :Eia G \g W PK @35‘Iq “W1 7 3W mgmEW— _ ‘V I" ‘ Q we‘l’i 4W QWA “mm ”‘ £6.11 .2001, ' Shri T.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the Wwbw w petitioner . Shri Deep Kesharwani, learned Panel Lawyer forVthe respondent / state. Heard . The impugned order .was issued on 13.10.2001 by rthe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg -,- respondent No.3. It is reflected in the impugned order that the High Court i i i its administrative side has ’ issued certain instruct ions ‘ ,7, 1 ‘ Consequently, ,therimpugned g , order was issued Q the Chi% } ¢ u W‘A- l Judicial Magistrate hith- drawing certain criminal cases from the file of the writ petitioner who is Judicia 1 Magistrate F irst Class. Admittedly, C J M. $7 thas the Jurisdiction to all l aer g2 3 a ? ‘ i ammqraWa) Wa§1wwi%m %n~awmw%$r t. The C.J‘.M.‘ has also x to withdraw certain cases his pOwer is exercisable at issue. What is at issue according to Shri T K.Tiwa;i is that certaint- of complaint was made and be ausezthat only without giving the petitioner opo rtunity of hearing cr1mina1 cases have been The impugned order does not reflect that any action h s‘been‘taken because of certa in complaints . Registry has not been imp eaded as a party respondent even otherwise this matter examined. Ori one'issue I C.J.L . is th‘e authorised x assign cases to a particu] withdraw some cases from issued illegally. ‘The e) also withdrawing cases frc C.J‘.M. is an administrati‘ £ certain criminal cases W ~, x therfile of the writ petit. ioner, it cannot be said status has been affected. that the writ petitioner's iv T.K.Tiwari that at the It is stated by Sh: moment the writ petitioner The action‘of the affect the service career 50,000‘ cases to a particular Cour the jurisdiction and power from any Court. whether by C.J.M. is not the pain the writ petitioner .‘ cannot ’ be ef f ect i‘fe 1y may state‘that if the :erson under the law to .ar Court and ’al'so to c L particular Court, it cannot be said that the impugned order has been :ercise 4 of assigning and Im a :particular Court by re action . x 6 have been withdrawn from cases c ithdrawn from the file of since this At t e sa‘me time, Just because is taking up only civil C J“ . ta in no way will of the writ oetitioner. (Contd...3..) GRPRJ FS/311——l/2001 E) a a gatmmaq§ %w@g%aE@( WW w.P.No.2221[2001 Wm %€¥I WW131=§®1W( mmmyFaa (Contd. order dated 06.11.2C01) 1 .. In the light of what I have stated above, petition . Accordingly, not inclined to accept this this petition is rejected. ‘7 6 4 ( 1' j Chief Justice