^<< c^i^^- ^ o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREATBJLASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (0 N0.: ^^ /2010 PETITIONER Vijay Shrivastava, aged 36 years, S/o Late Radhika Lal Shrivastava, Resident of Nurani Chowk, Near Raja Talab, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), .:VERSUS: - .-9s- v RESPONDENTS: ^••^' ^.%^'...- ^o'y')''3-''' ^y ^¥A\^--' ^-'y .>::" 1. r 2. 3. 4. '^'s.s.^j^l s.^\ {-^i'a •?.'•. '<''te~ \^i!K 5. StateofChhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Co-operative Department Dau Kalyan Singh Bhavan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur(C.G.) The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Department, Raipur (C.G.) The Raipur Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Through: the President Gyanesh Sharma, Choubey Colony, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G) Enquiry Officer, Office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur (C.G.) WR1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE DIRECTION (S), OR ORDER (S The above named petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under: - 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS: - As per mentioned above in the cause title ofthe petition. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: - As per.mentioned above in the cause title ofthe petition. l.?-W.^"..",?,"^-.»-^^'^^--==,i&^'«a?;^^-^.-,5^v~.^'.^'-;^^ ^ ~:^M ^^2%^.?^^i^^^?%^s%l^i^^s§^^^:'5!!:^M;^yy^^':^^^)sy^^, '•:s'^:S;^f!f^^!^S^^i^E y s^ iill:^:i WRrTPETmON(CyN0.8teOOF2010 PrtiUoner Vijay ShriTOstava Versus Respondents State ofChhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETmON UNE>ER ARTICLE 228 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: HQn'bte Mr, Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shn Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. OR( R(ORAL) (Passed on 1^nday of November, 2010) By this petition, thepetitioner seeks a directton to the respondent No.3/ Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Socleties, to decide the compiajnt filed by him in view of the notice issued under Section 53(13} ofthe Chhattisgarh Cooperative Scw;ietlesA<^,1960. Learned counsel appearing for the p^titioner sutwits that in show eause- notice dated 27.8.2010 retumable date was fixed on 20.9.2010, thereafter, nothing has been happened. Be that as it may, under Article 226 of the Constitution, no wilt can be issued to monitor hearing of cases before the authority, uniess there was allegation of malafide or excess of jurlsdictKm. This, this petition is frivolous and no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agniiiotri Judge ^