/ '?'' •^: r^ M THE mOH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. '~i>Li^ / 2003 / BITTOO @ RAMKINKAR SAffl, SON OF SHRI RAM SAHI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PONDI, MINES QUARTER PONDI, POLICE STATION PONDI, DISTT. KORTYA. ,1. 8TATE QF lCHHATTISGARH, THRiQUGH; TFHE; SECRETARY, PETITIONER VERSUS MINIISTR^ ©I?i10ME,D.K.S. m^ ^v ^%i^ ^ :i3Bi^||^g||iim ..^ •, ,, ;.^Y,^?^2"'"':: ^2. THE {1 GHaiEE f SECRETARY <..^P:<^G?"' ll^^^^lo"uoJ^I:::'rS^''" :: : ;: ':.- l^i^1 (HOME) , Q:1*'"^ '•/ RAJPUR. THE D.K.S. BHAWAN, DISTRICT RESPOW)@kfTS MAGISTR^TE, KQRTyA. II':^^TI1!ION^]NI>®:,^miet,ES:,:226.AMn!2^^^^ .J(]!^NsM]@PuTO©iE:iUMgiSM8i]lil@@[Elll^ 'vjW^sii^^lliE'NlAilfflKliBliil^^ -iAo fGi^:;;•OiBiEi^^.:^•^iWii;^liB]KE<e:M[(3iS«rs^J;laEN^:tU: ^ISEATin?lm':CT:!WRITS:'J;;;^ 1'1..^'!B B XI-HC-22 sfli^rWT ^llf J*1tGt<l ^HI^WSfl ^-1 1:: t'A 3^';giSjag,>®snl!M*t®,^&<w*fy 3TT^?T IRig^ ^ flmdi st)*ii<t).^M.:£;.JIAS<3j&^3 '^FI. 200 -fe^r sn^t &-Wt^< ^ifer- prefei't'ed 17/Q9/2p03~ passed p^ssed. 20/08/2004 Heard Shri Parag Koteclia|, Shri N^K.i Agrawal, . D^pu respondents/ Stafe. , Retum has not respoudents/State. The petitioner has 226/227 pf the Constitutioii| (AiuiexuTe P/l) dated (Hoiae), 'wfaereby; fhe order Konya, Bailcunfhpur (Atiaexuref^ the leamed District Magistiatej petitioner, passed &a order for fi-oini the Distrfcts xu^tioned tnj efifective from 15/09/2003. Durilig fhe course bf leamjed coi.uisel ftir the petitu|>iu already cosipleted almost 11 therefore, e;xtei-rtment order already eoiapleted. Sectijon 7 of Chliattisgarhl envisages fhat " a direction inajde eitter any district or part there(| districts Qr| aoy 1 part thereog cojttti be, shall be fbr such. peripd as 'fel^fet'S-l 4Wei( '?its«3!«&fEK ^FSffWT^I^g' couiisel-for fhe petitioner. mty Advocate Geueral for the een filed on behatf of the fhis writ petition under Article of India jquestipiung the order by the Chief Secretaiy by the District Magistrate, P/ 2) has been affirmed by which afifcer considenag the case of the ^xtemment for a period bfone year tfae order and the order was inadei EJrguiaents OD]y request inafle by] a<|>Her was fhat ttte petiticuier has D^oaths aiid one inorifh is left out, D|iay be restricted for the period Rajya Suraksha Ad'hiruyam, 11990 uiider Section 4, 5 or 6fiK?t toi (fprsucliarea acid aoy distric'li or :o(Ettiguous fhereto, as the case taay |may be specified fherein ajg^l^sfiaSl' <».-- 1:; ~;'?11:, [^r"?-^T^-j|?,{^^^^^.^^^^^^^?^^^;-;:?w®i;^@- %^.g»;.a. XI-HC-22 . ^ <t f :-<tt*lilst<t,i-®Arie^|«Rnsi'y •Utfe>tsbtti*~ ~E^<n^lT~" sn^^^^18^ •yfeffi ia no case exceed a period ofoij inade". lu vicw of the above pro^ passed for inaxmium period o^ petitioner has already couiple months. Therefdre, the reque^ appears to be just aad fair 1] Gcneralhas np objeetion. In f&e ciTetunstaiices, ttt^ extent that the period of exte^ instead ofQne year. Wifh theaforesaid observ of. . ..--',;' /.,'| CoHsequently, M.W.P.No.] Ceitified copy SLSfier rule^ c&tisfestl^^tl't^'^t^ttli '^t'1^^ ^i'aiKtftisn^H" (e yearfroiii the date ofwhich it was tision, the extemment order can be *. ;, . ^ one vear whereas in ttus case fhe |ted a period of around about 11 :^t of the counsel for the petitioner |o which leamed Deputy Advocate impugned order is inodified to fhe :(iiment is re|stricted to 11 xaonths ^tions, the writ petitibn is disposed pl61/2003 also slands dispdsedof. Sd/- I-C-BHAOOO ige It-iia [Sii:i-'.<'; :.»!•] BKS sss lilHi 4<1 dl iiBa • ill^ fsaa Ml 1:111