E‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAAT BILASPUR’ DNISION BENCH Coram : HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & ‘, HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. 1E Writ Petition (ELL) No.130812008 PETlTlONER Madaneshwar Prasad Sahu, Slo Shri Hari Bhanjan Ram, Aged about 37 years, Occupation-Agriculturist: R/o Viilage-Bansapara, Post- ‘ Gangoti, Block-Bhaiyathan, Tahsil- Surajpur, Distt.~$urguja Ambikapur (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Tribal Development And Welfare, Mantraiaya, DKs Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Welfare, Rgipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) » 3. Assistant Commissioner, ‘Tribal Development and Welfare, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja. 4. Collector, Distt. Surguga, Ambikapur (C.G.) 5. Tahsildar, Tahsil-Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 6. Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil-Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 7. Shiv Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Govind Singh, aged about 60 years, r/o Village-Sonpur, Post-Banja, Tahsll— Surajpur, - Block-Bhaiyathan, District—Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Occupation-Member Legislative Assembly Constituency-Surajpur 8. Ministry of Railways, Through Secretary, Rail Bhawan, Rafi ‘ Ahamed Kidwai Marg, New Delhi— l1. 9. South East Centrai Railways, Thraugh its Divisianai Raiiway Manager, DRM Office, Railway Colony, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 10. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resaurces & Development, Shastii Bhawan, New Delhi-1. Writ Petition Under \Articie 226 of the Constitution of India Present: Shri P.K. Bhaduri, ieamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the Stateirespondents No.1 to 6. Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned standing counsel for respondents No.8 to 10. ORDER (28‘“ Februaw, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, c.J. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. 2. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset fairly submitted that after filing of this writ petition on 20-2-2008, he was informed that the petitioner has already filed k; an appeal against the order dated 9-1-2008 (Annexure P-Q), . l, quashing whereof is sought in this writ petition. 3. Petitioner -— Madaneshwar Prasad Sahu claiming himself to be a ‘public spirited person’ has filed this writ petition styled as ‘Public interest Litigation' for the following reliefs: “7.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction etc. summoning from respondent Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 to produce complete records with respect to the subject matter of the petition. m 7.2. That this Hon‘ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/orderldirection etc declaring revenue order—sheets dated 17/12/2007 to 9/1/2008 (Annexure P-6) as iiiegal and perverse. 7.3. That this Hon’bie Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction etc declaring order/dated 9/1/2008 and entry made in Khashra Panch Sala ((Khashra Panch Sala (Annexure p—9) as a nullity and void ab initio. 7.4. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/orderldirection etc declaring demolition notice dated 16/2/2008 (Annexure P-17) as‘a nullity and void ab initio. 7.5. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction etc directing the respondent nos. 1 to 6 to consider setting up of the said school at a piece of land other than at the present place. 7.6. That the costs of the petition may kindly be allowed in favour of the petitioner. 7.7.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 4. Petitioner - Madaneshwar Prasad Sahu, thus, is seeking quashing of order-sheets dated 17-12-2007 to 9-1-2008 (Annexure P-6); order dated 9-1-2008 (Annexure Ps9); and the demolition notice dated 16—2—2008. 5. As the petitioner has already avaited statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the order dated 9-1 -2008 (Annexure P-9), we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the same order in this writ petition. if the persons to Assieee .LL,‘ ?. Subbu The writ petition, ther hereby dismissed summ 8. The security amount petitianer be refunded to him. ariiy. Sd/- 3: chief Justice of Rs.5;OOO/- ‘N‘ u J deposited by the Sd/~ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge efore, is liable to be dismissed and is