^-^' d ^ •^J^t— IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. / 2010 ^ETJTIQNERS: \p /\' ^••^/ a^cJow^^t )^a^S.^_ ^ 1. Shrawan Kumar Guptd^S/o Late Suresh Prasad Gupta R/o Posted at Prathmik Shala - Beljora , SitapLir , Distt-Sarguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/ ^ '3. Pradeep Kumar Gupta^S/o Saiju Prasad Posted at Prathmik Shala Bodajhariya, Tah- Sitapiir, Distt-Sarguja (C.G.) YERSUS 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chattisgarh 2. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat- Sarguja Disst. Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 3 Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur Disst. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh WMT PETITION UNDER ART1CLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONYS) N0.1851 OF 2010 PETITIONERS Shrawan Kumar Gupta & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. i: ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 22nd day ofApril, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by press release (Annexure - P/1) the petitioners were asked to file affidavit acknowledging that the petitioners have filed certain forged documents (fabricated documents), else it was threatened that First Information Report would be lodged against them. \2. The issue came into consideration before this Court in Baijnath Prasad Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others1 and other connected matters. 3. This Court after considering all the aspects of the matter, quashed the press release reserving liberty to the respondent authorities therein to do the needful, in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may also be allowed in the same terms. 4. Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents clearly submits that the issue involved is squarely covered by 1 WP (S) No.5592 of 2009 (decided on 6-4-2010) Y^ I ^ 1 1i "'i J •%yl:%^^^ ^f' ^—^ rfi- Arun the decision of this Court rendered in Baijnath Prasad Gupta (supra). I have examined the facts of the present case as well as the decision ofthis Court rendered in Baijnath Prasad Gupta (supra) and I am of the considered opinion that the facts are identical. In view of foregoing, the press release is quashed, as the same shall not be given effect to. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, if so advised. Needless to say that it is for the parties to take appropriate action thereafter, if need be, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. - Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ ^-