H1GJ4CQURTQFJUDICATUREGHHATTISGARH:: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK. CJ. clcl PETITIONERS '^..^ WRIT PETITION No.6138 OF2005 1. Ramesh Soni,S/o shri Ram Swaroop, Occupation: Cuttivator, aged35 years. 2. Tahasil Advocate Bar Association, Revenue Court, Simga, Through: President, Tahsil:Slmga, Distt. Raipur (CG) 3. President,nagarPanchayat,Simga, Hardep Singh Bhatia 4. Prannod RaoBhasale, S/o Late Shri Natthu Rao, Aged about 70yeare, CuMvator, Ex-Prisident, Nagar Palika, Simga 5. Dharam Chand Jairi, S/Ol.ateShri RaijuLal Jain, Aged about 56years,CulUvator, Ex-^4embe^, Nagar Panchayat, Simga 6. Prabhat Tamrakar, S/o Late Shri Guru PrasadTamratoir, aged about47years, CulUvator, Simga, All R/o Simga, Distt. Raipur(CG) RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through-The SecretaryLawDepartment, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur {C.G.) » Present: ShriYashwantTiwari.leamedcounselforthepetitioners. Shri Parag Kotecha, leamed Panel Lawyer forStete. ORAl.ORDER (Passed on 13 December2005) r t '. ; . • r Tahsil Advocate BarAssociation, Revenueeourt, Simga, President, Nagar Panchayat, Simga and certainother residents ofSimga hav®filed this writ petition under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitutipn of India for ^ \. \..!^^^^^^:ws^f;^: a- g!i ^;JI 1 /"" ^ \ a direction to fte State ofChhatBsgarh,the respondent herein, to establish a Civil Court atSimga contending fhat Simga has all the necessary infrastructural Tacilities to establish a C'lvil Court and if such a Court is established, itwould be very convenientto the litigant public also. -There is no need fbr the Court to refer to and considerthe details set out in the writ petition to highlight the merit and suitability of establishinga Court at Simga. Dispensation ofjustice to the consumers ofjustice in any civilized society is an inalienable duty cast on ttie spvereign state. The power of deciding where Gourts should be established, who should be presiding officersofthose Courts and supervision and control ofthe presiding offlcers of the Courts and management of fte Courts by virtue of the const'rtutional provisionsunderArticle233to2%vestinthel-lighCourt. Ofcourse,inthe matter of establishing theCourt, it is for the State Govemment toestablish necessary Courte on ttie recommendation ofthe High Court, It is notthat our system does not provide for the authorities to take care of the needs of the public, particularly, the interests ofthe consumers ofthejustice. In such matters, the opinion of persons like the petitioners would not be a determining factor. No doubt, they being the consumere of justice can ahways appeal tothe concerned authorities and make representation about the need to establish a Court in a particular place. But, the auttiorities even after considering such representations and appeals do not think it aippropriate or expedient to establish a Court at suchplace, it is not Uieir right to move this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution for mandamus. I do not find any semblance of any legal right in any of ttie pet'rtioners to seek such writ. j In that view ofthe matter, the wit petiUon isdismissed. However, ttiis order shall not preclude the petitioners and othere of Simga ftwn l^ making appropriate represenfation to the Govemment or to the High Coyrt for consideration vwth regard to the need of establlshing a Civil Court at Simga. ; SdA Chief Justiee Judge \ \i/- fr/A;e^-