m_THE HI&H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0._$^<> OF 2006 eiSnala, .** ^^:g^::> >-:"^%---"" years' ---"-^y.y'" Mahasamund. Human Singh Nishad, son of Shri Sukhadev Ram Nishad, aged about 52 resident of ^^y-" vs RESPONDENTS r7 .^•~.-^ <~1 o •«> <~^'.' ^r^ 6 l^ ^\.^- 'o ^' ,^t 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Collector, Mahasamund. .i^. yO ^- Q^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLES 226 SB 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS /CERTIORARI ETC OR DIRECTION(S) / ORDER(S) IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. A~"~ XI-HC-22 aii^rq;' •feiwsntn s^^ii^ '^fft^T n ^ ^^ ^nqi?iq, -sCims. -ferray 13>..5^'t°i 19 SD^F'^Riiwaftn 2-2-2006 Shri B.P. Sharma, counse! Shri Sandeep Dubey. Govi; Application for urgent heari|ia 'wBB - anb The petitioner has fiied th| 2006 passed by the respondenij the petitioner's services have beej The petitioner was a Magistrate, Mahasamund. He wa^ taken bribe of Rs. 4,0001- Estabiishment, Raipur. Challan petitioner has been convicted j Section 13(2) of the Prevention sentenced to two years rigoreus i|ni defeuit of payment of fine to Three years rigorous imprisonmeht payment of fine to further underg^ conviction, the petltiQner prefert' bearina Criminai No. 639/2005. been granted baii. The convlcl petitioner has been convicted, chaiienae is to the order of {ermirfetion heard. '^T^^'^T1 ^WW ^ ^^ •d^l^K ^ srfigifan^r' for ths petitioner. Advocate forthe State. is ailowed. |s petition against the order dated 18-1- no. 2-Coliector, Mahasamund whereby ^ terminated. In the Office of Coliector/District prosecuted on the around that he had was caught by the Speciai Police |was filed and case was fiied and the u^ider Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with iof Corruption Act, 1988 and has been ihiprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000;'- in undergo.R.i. for two months and and a fine of Rs. 3.000/-, in defauit of (> R.l.for three months respeciavely. After •|'6d an appeai b.efore the High Court ]The appeat is pending however, he has (ion has not been stayed. Since, the servtoes have been terminated. The on the ground that he has no{ been fUrther His [1[ft^ ^Pa^ £^. - -f ^si •^pnn^, •grtems, teirey ^'r^f^ 2r SD^I^I 'f?;li?? 3T!g?T ^•{[^^•irg^ f' sii^r TOIRIT •gf??r -Y-. Counsel 'for the petittoner was disputes the conviction. He stated tha< admitted. No enquiry as such is reqtrit convicted and the appellate authoritil' susoended the conviction, there is no in( Havina considered the facts materiat on record, no case is made dated 18-1-2006 passed by the extTaordinaryjurisdiction under Articte The petjtion fafls and is dismissefi +Wfd'ii1-f tTFti^ if 1ST^<r«iyf( •^? siiigii sn^i feaointediy asted as to whether he he does not dispute it. All this is t'ed. Since the petitioner has been J' has only granted bail and not ibrmity in the impugned order.CtbghA-^ cireumstances of the case and (Jt for any interference in the order- no. 2 whiie exereisina frie P6/227 ofthe Constitution of India. arid oUt 2E Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge 1