c^ ^^V- -r LNTHE^HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W,P.(QNo. Lt3fc.c) /2010 Vinish Joy, aged about 34 years S/o Shri K. N. Joy R/o Adarsh Nagar, Thana Road Kawardha Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS/ : 1) ^he State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Revenue Departinent, D.K.SBhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^f .^?/ i?y'h?.p/ >nJ/^f /^•'n'?/ w 7W /' ^ :2) The CoUector Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G) :3) Nayab Tahsildar (Nazul) Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ^4) Sarv Adhikari And Karmchari Sangh through its President Adarsh Nagar, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION^ OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE,WRIT/WRITS, IRECTION/DIRECTION, ORDER/ORDERS ETC. 1 •^^".?^i:;.^'^.^'S^ i^^: '7-?%?^:^>^.:^^ -'IIH -KS, ••\ .,:: ':': '.:: Ma©i»NiBiiialeiEBa@ES®isi[;tf;BiS'^^ PElTnQNER RESEPONDENTS WR@';aKffII^st(®^Mo.^3^<a'201Qi ':^:.^.^l'-'SitUsUiJEgfc^^''^;.l.,s,;.^...,?: :,,:. ^' :^1^Sl^^:.,:::L:::,;':.';:i,.',.;:^ 'INSt^eaE'eNiatfisgali&OtheTS. WMT BETmON UNDERARSICa^ 22e<)E 3HEeC^STHI^^ .,.;:,,SB:HKm'Jt^<S^.Sai^ .&^ihutn<J.L:.:^^ Pres^:';. •^S^^Iffiile^SmBafil^j^^l^ ;.:- ,S^:®;KEliw3p^SaiE^iI|ainW! ^SEI^?t'^ •^.::-Oi8SBXWKAS^^ .,,,i.i! ,:l. ;•: '1 -^ :1 ::' ; (PassedonlOlB(iay^^aigttd,2018) i j •"'•:. : .;.-:: :;;;1 /'•- ^.^K -y:; •1 "•.•^,.'.''^^^^ :.^-:;i:'i^..-'.';. 1. Challenge in tiiis petitim is to tlw tiotieedated 22.7.2010 (a'^texure P/8) issued by the resp<nawt J< 3 ia ease No. A/20(4)|M08^ wfth regard to cancellation^flease graaij^by^ fespQmleitt-^ate iffl !&VOUT .ofthe.petituaier.:.'. ' : .'; \'.: '• ' : •'•; ' 1", ,. ^ ':•,' ' !'i!i1-' .1 2. The petititmer wasissuey anotiee]da^t2142.2000 ^ (...' ; : '....': 1he Chief Mumcipal CMSe% Ktunicipal Goiaifiil, ^avrai^ia, jto |show eause asto v^ Ihe unaufhorized eon^^ maynotbedemoHsIi^.TliepetitMmwhasDot a notk®»^issui^'m a^aidmg:pi^eej&gs^^er^^^^ wMtj regard toleanceMstionpClMsl^eisp^iidia^liefiw^flieN^ (Naz^. ^xste^ ^ t^^ss^^^^^^^^^ • (Arinexui'e I^), ^ petitisnw IM^^ quadurigj1of^<liej|iao&^|i^i|^j1|yj;^^| .•^'^^,iSi'^.,^:2'2M^SOi|i|VmS^|BgSE^^^^^||ajt^e|U BSfflHnfilM VSSSSMS IIOKIi^MSIIBi^^^BB81!BlfilBSSIIIKS3iBJjt8!lfili«BiB ':.^?; ^;.i,^f^:^''"^^a^s3:i;^%^^";^^^^^^^^'-^^^ ";^r:: ^•"^. "•^•j?i^^:^:rwlw^^'i%?^s^i'"^i^. (^1;^^;^ The petitioner, without approaching the court ofNaib Tahsgdar (Nazul), wherein the issue of grant of lease is pendmg, approached fhis Court directly. It is a clear case ofmisuse ofjudicial proeess while knowing fully well tfiat the dispute is pending considerrtion before the quasi judicial authority. The High Court cannot etitertain such petition under Article 226 oftiie Constitution oflndia as it is at the stage ofnotice only. No lurther order has been passed and as such, no cause ofaction has arisen. Leamed counsel fcw the petitioner makes a submission ttet some observation on merits ofthe case may be made. Ifthe matter is at the stage of notice only by the authority, there is no reason why the merit ofthe case eiflier be discussed or recorded in fhe order. The petition is misconceived and appears to be with a purpose to take advantage ofjudicial proceedines by misleading the Court Thus, this petition is dismissed as being premature. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amlt 1