HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PET!TION (S) NO. 1825 OF 2009 PETITIONER S.C. Kewat. Slo Late MS. Kewat, aged, about 621years, Rio G-4 Mandi Irrigation Coieny, J'agdaipur, Distt. Bastat (CG) Versus State 0f Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Irrigation, D.K,S. Bhawan, Raipm (CG). 2. The Ascountant General. office of the Accountant General, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri $atish K. Agnihotri. J. RESPONDENTS 1 . Preseat: Shri N. Naha Roy, counsel fer the petitioner. Ms Smita ‘Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. Ms Sharmila Singhai. Aesietant Solicitor General for the Union of lndia/responclent No.2. ’ GRAL ORDER (Passed on this 8“; clay of April, 2009) With the consent of teamed counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finatly. 2) In this petition, the petitioner impugns the letter dated 17-2—2009 (Annexure — PH) issued by the office of the respondent No.2fAccountant General wherein it is stated that ae per calcutation made by the respondent No.2 there is a negative balance of Rs.18,349f— in the GPF acoount of the petitioner. The petitioner is aocotdingly called upon to suhmit details if there is any error in the calculation made by the office of the respondent No.2 with documentary evidence. 3) The petitioner. without replying to the said letter. approached this Court straightaway on the ground that the petitioner has already suhmitted the calculations and on the basis of said calcutation nothing remains to he decided pursuant to the impugned letter dated 17-2-2009. It is further submitted that earlier the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.6895/2Q08 wherein a liberty was granted to the petitioner on 10-12~ 2008 (Annexure — P/18) to approach the respondent No.2 for redressai of his grievances in the matter of negative haiance in his GPF account. I , gq 4) it appears that in the process 0f taking decision on thé iepresentation of the petitioner, the impugned lettér, which is in the form of notice. was sent to the petitioner by the respondent No.2. in )‘esponse t0 the said letter, the petitioner ought to have submitteei the ccmpiete details once again even if he has already submitteei the same. The petitioner has ‘choeen to appmaeh this Court without responding to the letter dated 1 7-2- 2009 (Annexure — Pit). Thus. this petition is pi'emature. 5) in View of the foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit his reply to the ietter dated 17-2-2009 and thereaher after final decision taken by the respondent No.2. if any grievance subsists the petitioner may take recourse to judicial forum. if so advised. 6) With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. M \ \:i1 \f