w 06¢1rb7/ BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. @Ié /20‘IO WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, z PETITIONER : J" Tameshwar Sahu, S/o. Dhara Singh Sahu, aged about 48 years, R/o. Arjuni, Tahsil-Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENT / 1, State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary Co—operative Societies, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) o 9W 6\ VD 9/ 'vGé 4a / 2. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, \t x33 Raipur (C.G.) ,p \3' ”oz 0) (weft; \ Q- Q65 I e6 by”; r 3. Deputy Registrar, (Lo-operative Societies. Rajnandgaon, District §$ Rajnandgaon (CG) /4. Maa Durga Fal Avam Sabji Udpadak Avam Vipnan, Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Medha, Through : Its President, Block-Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C0,) / '5. Shashikant Dwivedi, President—cum— Director, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon (CG) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panei Lawyer for the State. Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 3 day of May, 201 1) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action, on the complaint of the petitioner, against the respondentsrNoA, as per the enquiry report submitted on 28-10-2009. The petitioner also seeks a consequential relief that the registration of respondent No.4 may be cancelled as well as the appointment of the respondent No.5 on the post of President, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon, may be declared as null and void and further initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondent No.4. 3. On 27-10-2010, the State counsel was granted two weeks time to seek instructions asto whether any decision has been taken on the enquiry report dated 28-10-2009 filed by the Senior Cooperative inspector, Cooperative Societies, Rajnandgaon. 4. The State has filed the return on 3-1-2011 clearly stating that the report has been considered and the show cause notice issued thereon, on the basis of report, has been cancelled. The decision dated 30-9-2010 (Annexure — R/2) is not under challenge. Even WRIT PETITION (C) NO..6216 OF 2010 PETITIONER Tameshwar Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Q otherwise, on the basis of report, the decision was taken before filing of this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that everything has been done pre—dated and with ulterior motive not to take action against the respondents No.4 & 5. Be that as it may. if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30-9-2010, the same may be challenged. However, in the facts situation of the case, on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner no direction can be issued. The complaint has to be examined by the authority and they have passed the order on the basis of thereport and the final decision is not under challenge in this petition, thus the petition has become infructuous. Resultantly, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri