^ L( '^. ••<\ "\ i'^-<: ^J c ZN TKE HIC3K COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH PE7I7IONER W.P. N0. l°78o 72004 Radheshyam Agrawai, aged about 73 years, S/o. Late Shri Bhooramai Agrawal, Occupation: / Forest Confcractor, Resident of f Ramanujganj Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS -^ wy. ^3>\.-'' ^'J^^'i <<y" ^',- 1. ^ 2. ^ 3. /• 4. Ctei-^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Its Secretary, Departmenfc of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur, Chhatfcisgarh Divisionai Forest Officer/ Licensing Authority, South Surguja Forest Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhafctisgarh Conservator of Forest/ Appellate Authority, Suryuja Qrcle, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhafcfcisgarh Shri V.S. Dhruv, Divisional Forest Officer, East Surguja Forest Djv'jsion, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhatfcisgarh J"rf K'"...^^ t-r^y ^y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA r^ XI-HC-22 3TI^T'^T f^N'^n^T ^^ict»^f^a -^acT'^Tpn^pT, ^ni^^Ko, f^<ni^li< ^l^€rll5h^l<=t) 31T^?T ^^K ^...^.:.S....^..A^!^ •^ 'i^^sr' 3T^T'?"CT^R'Hft<T chl<4(d<li1T1 'HR^f ^ ft^t ^T^R i73?rf^TH3T^T 12/08/2004 Shri SxiaU Sinlia, counsel f<|>r the petitioiier, Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Depu^ Govt. Advocate for respondexits No. 1 to 3/State. None appears on behaJf ^f respondent No. 4 ia spite of service of notice on him. I have heaxd learaed couais^l ^or ^xe pa-rti^s' By fhis writ petition, ffae p^titioner has challei^ed the order dated 13.4.2004 (Aimexure P/(2) whereby the petitioner was rcqimwl to show cause. Apart fi^m tfaat ia fhe second paat of fhe saxne notice, it was dirccted fhat [antil further oxders, fhe Saw MiU should be closed and fhey shoi^ld co-opexate wifh fhe team for physical verification and checkm^ up fhe wood items lying m ffae SawMffl. Leanied counsel for the pe|dtioner submits that fhe rcply to show cause has already been Leanied coxinsel for fhe pjetitioner, at fhe outset, submits that as far as the first part is c<|?nceracd, at fhis stage he is not challcngmg fhe same as reply t^ show cause faas already been filed. He ftirther submits that th^ maia grievaxice of fhe petitioner ia that fhe respondent No,2 was 40t aufhorized to oxder for closiirc of the Saw MiU because as per th^ provisions of Sub-Section (5) of Sectioxi 6 of M,P, (Kashfha Chiijan Vioiyaman) Adhmiy^oi 1984, the respOHdent No. 2 was not esjitifled to order for closure of tihie Saw Mffl without ghdng an opp^rtunity of showiag cause to fhe XI-HC-22 STT^T'^T ^Jch ^^ s^^Icn <if^a J' err n ^r H^ -00 '<- ^y "S^t ^I^KTI^, ^Tll^l^Ko, (^^11<-iy 3ff^T XR^ 'WIW5TRN?* '*'*'**'*"*****"*" **^F^ 20° "fa^T" ^n^r'^TT^R'^f^T —^^ that m fact it was not an order cbl^(<yl<Mlr1 TTFI^f ^ feT^t ipsi-^K ^3rf^R37Ti^T petitioaaer whereas the resp^ndent No,2 without givixxg an opportuaity to show cause, ord^rcd for closure offhe Saw MiU< On fhe ofher hand, lear^ed Dy. Govt. Advocate submitted ifor closure of tlie Saw MtU, but the petitioner was directed to stop 4ie work till fhe physical verificatioa of fhe wood fying in fhe Saw NpliU, He fiirfher submite ffaat since fhe phyaical verificatioxi has alx^ady been done, Haviag heard fhe learae|d counsel for ihe parties, having regard to fhe facts and circum^taiices of fhe cas^ and as per fhe ar^umente of the learued comi|sel for fhe respondeute/State fhat the closure was oidered for |a lioiited period till ffae physical verifiication and inspection of t^ie wood lyiag ia fhe Saw MiU aiid that part is over, fhercforc, in ^ie circunistaaces, fhe petitioner is allowed to opcmte fhe Saw MiU |subject to aay final order passed m rcsponse to show cause notice l|y fhe rcspondent No.2. ^ In view of fhe above oxjder, fhe Writ Petition as well as >sed of. M.W.P.No. 1591/2004 stand Certified copy as per nite^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [Tn^tfe^