inmes CF‘lwL IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [S] NO. 14’ y“ [200 Bholaram Dansena, son of Jagatram f Dansena, aged about _ 39 years, Resident of village ,Gonda, Police Station Saria, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh [C.G.]. VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, through —- Chief Secretar , D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C,G,]. 2] Cooperative Society, Raigarh, f Through— Sub—Registrar, Rajgarh. 8] Officer-In—Charge—, Cooperative /’ ‘ Society, Salheona, District Raigarh [C.G.]. 4] Collector, Raigarh, w District Raigarh [C.G.]. y“ PETITIONER 3V/sfiBanshidhar Patel, R/o village Patel Katungpali, S/o Mali Lal / P.O. Bonda, Police Station Saria, District Baramk‘ela. H ’ é ' ” WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'sm @V 6 , / y M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUE W. P. (s) No. 4241 of 2006 Pe‘h'fioner- Bholamm Dansena Versus Respondenfs 5fn+e o \Chhaf‘i’garh & o’l'hers Singk Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Jusfice Scrh‘sh K. Agnihofri. Present Shri Pawan Keshar-wnni, Advocafe for “the efoner. 5hri V.V.5. Moor'i'hy, Depu‘fy Advocafe Gerrard wH’h Smt Anju Ahuja, Depufy dvoca‘fe Genera! for +he Sfa'fe/respondenfs. ' (Passed on 13+ day of Decmber, 2006) ” e The folbwing order of ‘fh Cour? was passed by Safish K. Agnihofr‘i, J‘ 1. The pe+ifioner was working as a parf fime Manager in The office of 141a responden-r No. 2. On The basis of compkxin? made by fhe viHagers ‘rhaf of +he fime of purchasing of paddy, The pefi‘l’ioner has been mis-approprim'ion 1 k‘g. more paddy by way of wrong weighfing. Nofice was issued +0 ‘rhe pe’rHioner. The pefifioner submi'H’ed his repiy. 2. Affer having considered 'l'he repfy filed by ‘H'ne pefi‘i'ioner, The Depu'fy Regisw‘mr, Coopemfive 5ocie+ies, Raigar'h by his order dafed 5.4.2006 (Annexure P/3) held 'H’ie pe'i'ifioner no‘r guih‘y. Fur'fher, if was direcfed fha'i' 'H'ie pe'i'ii'ianer shouldnm‘ be given fhe work of f is pm A O R U E R e purchage of rise and he should be pos'md in ‘H'Ie secfion deaiing wi'l’h disbursing and recovery of loans. . The pe'ri'rioner has filed 'rhis pe’l’ii'ion under Arficle 226/227 of +he ‘Consfifu'lion (if India seeking a direc‘l’ion for joining fhe posf where he was earlier posfed. The pe‘fi‘tioner is no'f in a posi‘fion 'io poinf ouf any righf which has accrued in favour of +he pe‘ri’rioner and furfher +i1ere was any breach of such righ'i'. The order passed by The Depuiy Registrar, Cooperafive Socie1'ies, Raigarh is in favour of 1he pe'rifioner. The pei’i‘rioner has no? made ouf any ground by which if can be held fha'i' +he concerned or senior am'hori'l'ies are nof ac‘fing in compliance of +he order‘ Thus, This pe‘ti'i’ion is vague, crypfic, frivoious and devoid of meri‘l'. . This pefifion deserves To be dismissed as no? mainfainable and is accordingly dismissed. No order as 1'0 cos‘l's. y 7‘ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge v ’zwz ea aaaymmu