t-'X- IN THE HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ^e^h WRIT PETirCQN (0 N0.- 72011 PEnnoMER Dr.Surjeet Singh S/o Dr. Jai Singh, Aged about 50 years, Occupation - M.S. (Ortho) R/o Near Niharika Talkies, Korba-(C.6.) VERSUS RESPON&ENTS ^^- ^:-\\^.-" ....^.^^" .-. •'"..^"'"Qy^'- Y^- y^ •^ 1. State of Chhattisgah, Through : Director Health Services, Raipur, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur- (C.6.) 2. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Korba-(C.6.) 3. Superintendent of Police, Korba-(C.G.) 4. ' Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi r'" 5. Chairman National Human Rights Commission, Faridkot, House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi. 6. Dilharan Khunte S/o Panika Ram Khunte, Aged about 40 years, R/o Near Rakhad Dam, Ring Road, Naya Risda, Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil <& Distt.Korba(C.(5.) WRIT PETCTtON UN&ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTCON OF INOIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUST. CERTCORARY A6AINST THE RESPONDENTS H^i'^b^;^^' y XI-HC—78 3n^r ^T fyiNi' 'aqr an^r giTijq; wqHr^!?ra» ^£r^iraR^r, 'gTftwTg, tNcwy wl:^...^o)':^/^\ sn^TTra^C ¥fgiwaftasii^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra 25-07-2011 Shri Sunil Otwani, counsel 1jor the petitioner. Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputi ^Nwfl^ •RIlRff •? fest tfSrRTC ^? afRn aiT^r irivasi Advocate General along with Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Government Advocale for respondents No.1 to 4 on advance j copy. ! Heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ/order ordirection, directing the official respondents to restrain from initiating any action against the p^titioner pursuant to complaint (Annexure P- 3) made by the respondent No.6. | Learned counsel for the fetitioner submitted that the complaint of respondent No.6 was examined fy the District Consumer Forum and when order adverse to the petitioner wa The appellate authority has se t passed, the same was taken in an appeal. aside the order passed by the District Consumer Forum. He submits th^t the respondent No.6 having failed to get any compensation, has started including police authorities and| harassed, as various notices ar^ making complaints to various authorities on his complaint, the petitioner is being being issued to him, to appear before the authorities. It appears that on some various authorities including the Police, Korba, issued two letters the petitioner submitted that th^ |:omplaint made by the respondent No.6 to fcolice authorities, the City Superintendent of jan 30-05-2011 and 02-06-2011 requiring the petitioner to place before him, tijie relevant documents. Learned counsel for relevant documents, as demanded by the City Superintendent of Police, jKorba, were submitted before him. In this background, the petitioner has ^erious apprehension that at the instance of tl,kli! XI-HC—78 ?S[ ^l^li'1'M, ®Tfl+1< ,Isidiy^ 31T^?rlf?;fW W sn^I aiqra <s»> /a- Tumane 3T^I 'q?B7 ('yi^'i'?) respondent No.6, the police authorityi adverse action against the petitioner. Frofn the aforesaid two letters,! Superintend^nf of Police, Korba to the asked to submit certain documents, \^ been submitted before him. In the petiti police authority including the City Supe] any action against the petitioner. Morel made some complaint to various authol is nothing on record to show that the re|spondent No.5 has either initiated any proceeding or pass any adverse order s cft'Ptfepft'f 'STFT^ff ^f f%l<Q <(^('^l< ^siRn sii^i and the respondent No.5 may take whieh have been issuedby the City petitioner, 1 find that the petitionerwas fhich according to the petitioner, has pn, I do not find, after 30-06-2011, the •intendent of Police, Korba have taken wer, though the respondent No.6 has n'ties including respondent No.5, there gainst the petitioner. At this stage, 1 am therefore, ni|)t inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. However, the petitioner would|be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him, unifer the law, in case, any adverse order or action is taken against the petitionei) by any of the respondent authorities. Lastly, it is submitted by learned couns^l for the petitioner that he is a Medical Practitioner and the manner, in whic(i, the various authorities are writing letters and requiring him to come to th^ therefore made clear that the petitione| respondent authorities. With the aforesaid observation, the petitioh is finally disposed off. Shrivastava r offices, is an act of harassment. It is shall not be harassed by any of the ManindraMobw Jud&e !'';<!