IN THE HIGH CQURT QP JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BXLASPUR •. w.p.'N©.2:2g'g/2©02 • • PETITIONERS .4^^ Jg^ . ^y' ^•^"•''.J ,<^ DPankaj Kumar Nirmailsar %/• Lat.®Premlal Nirmalkax^ Aged abwite 34 years^ Sairyanch^ Gram ganchayat Amlidih^ Bleck Dharsiva^ Tehsil & District-Rai?ur(CG) 2)Smt.Kavita Chawia W/e Gevind Ram Ghawla^ Aged abeut 42 years^ JR/» Ganga ¥ihar»Amlidih, Pest Ravigram^ t@hsii & Distt•Raipur (CG) • 3)Smt, Rukhmani Devangan W/e G^vardhan Devangan^ Aged abeut 50 years^ R/e Ganga'Vihar^AKilidih^ PestftRavigram^ Tehsil & Distfc. Raipur (CGX 4)Devendra g^a&ad Guyta W/» B.R, Gupta, Age<3 abeut 48 years^ V» Ganga Vihar^Amlidih Pesfc Ravigram^ Tehsil& DistFiGt,Rai?ur(CG5 VSRSUS RESPONDENTS l)State »f Chhattisgarh Threzigh the Se^^etary^ H<»using & Biivirenment Deytfe•^ Mantralay BKS Bhawan^Raiyur» ^^2)The Birecter^ Tewn & Ceuntry Planning Dejitt^ Ojip.Mantralaya^GE Read^ Ratpur (CG) <, 3)Gram Panchayat^Amiidih Blcek Dharsiva^ Tehsil & Dtstricts-Raipur(CG) 4}The Callec.fr, Raigrur BlfStrict^ Raipur^ NRII PETITIONUNDERARTIGLE 226/227 QF IHE CON'PITUTION OF ZNDIA ......^-.J ^p^TWRT^ "7^ "^TP^R, ^^<H4t6, ici^iyy , w-f^^^V&2-^ ^"•••"•••"•""-"•-"•"•"•••"••""•"T^ 200 ^Ti^i ^^F (^i^^T) 3^?T'^»Tf^ri<^ ^W 3TI^T ^^W l^iT^-^fNsn^ •Wlfcf^-RF^ ^" ^St •?^TC ^4Rp^3^r D.B.: Hon. ShriFakhroddin. J & Hon. Shri L.C. Bhadoo,J. 19/2/2004 Shn Bharat R^jpoot for Ifae petitio^ieis, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal. Dy. A.Q. for tiie respondents no.l, 2 aad 4 on advai^ce copy. Hem-d. The present petition has been ffle^ notices by Ifae Govemment to regirianze thNr State counsel raised an objectiori directty filed tius writ petftion against authority concemed. They refied upon Ifae). Special Dffector and another vs._MA<L 2004 AIRSCW 416, wherein tt has been Co4rts "5. This Court m a l^ge Ae practice of Ae Hi^i questiQning tegality of flie enquiries as iwoposed and to find actual facte witfa presence of flhe parties. satisfied fhat tfae show causel the eye of law for absolut^ authority to even investiga^ should not be entertained . and Shri Rantrir Sii^i, Govt. Advocate. by Ifae petiilioners against the issuance of constructton. and subinitted Ifaat Ihe iwtitionera have ^ie show cause wifhout ^pproactring the Ijudgment ofthe Apex Cowtm the case of |Ghulam Chouse and anoflier reported in ield in para 5 as under: nu|nber of cases has deprecated entertalnixig writ petitians jshow cause notices staUing i^tarding mvestigative process 4ie pmliotpation and in tfa^ lUnlesSs, tihe Hj^i Court K Inotice was totally non est in want of jurisdiotion of the iga^e mto facte, writ petitions tfae mere asldi% md as a fdr Gt.PRJ—FS/78 '^^^i^Kn^i, '^ft^FT?, fsRiroy ^I'*f^ff %<S?^> •W[ 200 ^T^?T Tra^ (^t3^?) 3?T!^T^RT^W WT 3H^T^?^N? Imt e 4nd matter of routine and fhe be directed to respond to all stands highlighted in show cause notice was foi^ided jurisdiotional issue whichj recipient of fhe notice adjudicated by Ihe auth<jnity imtialfy, before tfae Furifaer, when flie Court be caa-eful to see fhat <fae and specificaBy comtitot^d daiuded of powere and matter aid ensure tiiat uNmate not be finaBy gr<mted in the writ petitioner even protection, gr^ited." petitioner should mvariabty <he show oaiise notioe and take wnt petition. Whetf^r the on any legal preinises is a can evest be urged by fhe such issues also can be issuii% the vesy notice could approach fhe Court. an interim order it should ^tstirtoiy functi(maries speciafly for fhe pwpose ore not 4udiority to imtialty decide (he rcfief which may or may writ petition is accorded to flie du-eshold by the mtersm p^isses tfie Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ^N^pN w^r ^ fe^t T^K ^•.^R?^ 3^1 Ih the aforesaid view of fhe mtitter, Ae petrtioners want to withdraw tfus petitiem with liberiy to rdse Ihe grounds b|efore thecompetent authority. Accordingiy, the petition stands d}sposed ofwith tfae liberiy as prayed. Secuiity, ifany, deposited by the i)etitioners be refimded. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge GRPRJ—FS/7S~ 5/200( -50,000.