z» p In the High Court at Judicature at Chattisgarh at Bilasgur. w v '\ 8 8'2. [0? Petition disgatched by Courier. 0n the Human Rights day. dated 10.12.04 Petitioner : Dr.Pra'tap‘ Agrawal s/o LateBN Agrawal, aged 60 , Advocate, Jagdalpur 494001. Versus. Respondents : 1, Government ofChattisgarh, ChiefSecretry, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2% ' I/QMMM @W €Lwwié’9ic53 LfuxQj % 2 (WW klPublic Interest Petition under Art 226/227 Indian N Constitution under Article 21 [or grotection ot lite and liberQ and to ugkeeg Human Rights... ‘ XI—HC—22 301 Division Betxch : Heri’b}e Shr§ Fakhruddin Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar 1 1-03-2065 This is an office reference. Shri PraShant Mishra, Addi. The petitioner, Who is ,an Advocat‘a, has sent thi§ petition by post It app€ars that‘On 10/ 19/” Demmber 1% a humarl ngnt clr Human R1ght CommxsSlon hag n1 The anx1etv may be ther6 public interest litigation is somet iii form Qf ‘a petition, it requires ti I Them shouid be a proper draft} contain vexatious avermente. It and should be properly fiied as pi Supreme Court in the case of §, reported in AER 1 997 SC 2?2. ’ The High Court of 1V ' guide~1ines. State of Mu”. & ers. reported made certain guide lines 1egarchn We have gone thiough th proper pleadings ThiS Court has also cons Writ Petition V0.4123/04 (Raj i ' Orsj‘ At G), for the State )004- the petitioner noted that 10th j and the complete strength of t been titled up in this State. a but for taking, upa, cause in ap hing different 1f the same is filed lorough‘preparation in this regard. ng of the petition. 1t should no should contain the facts, grounds er the directions given by the Hon L P. .rinand vs. ED. Deva Gowda :he said case also contains certain 'iiP‘ in the case of S.P. enand’vs. n 1999 if!) MPJR 532 has also g filing of the same = petition. lt' does not contain the dered the matter in great detail in tumar Singh vs, State of CG. E’s (whet) v t 'XI-HC-22 R’W, wan-gr, f‘aaragt mm m 200 mmm'“2K instead of proceeding further, We are dropping the matter at the petitioner; who is practicing d‘to go through therlaw on the WW§E¢W - %3T%1Ir3n%¥r this stag€ with the hope that advocate, would be well ‘advisc subject. So fér as full strength of concerned, Shri PrashantMish‘ out thaf anti Member Mr. Jaco} Who Was the Member of Ac1ri1ini: fur'lctidns as Acting Pres§dent p that the Retiregi Chief LIfJ.stice of of the Hon. Smareme‘Court is to ’matter has to be ‘pmcessed functionaries. It is stated that fact and the matter is under C0. statement is recorded, Having heard and conside are of the opinion that instead may be disposed of with a dire( matter in accordance with law possible, Accordingly, this petition S i gn‘wki Copy to the State counsel. the Human Rghts Commissionis ‘a, Addi, Advocate General, points fhad resigned and Mr. LJ, Singh, ;trative Tribunal, is. discharging the ‘ Human Rights It is pointed out: the High Court or the Retired Judge be the Chairman and therefore the through 'variou'S' constitutional the State Govt. is conecieus of the 1sideration of the Government. The ed the facts and circumstances, We of taking any action, this petition / ‘tion to the State to proceed in the and decide it as expeditiously as tandsdisposed oft Wk V i: Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha . Judge Sd/-i Acting Chief Justice i3 i