Smgla Bgam IN THE HIGH COURT OF IUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WritPetition No. 6 or6 /2005 PETITIONER / Ramprasagd Dvivedi S/ o. Kanhaiyalal Dvivedi, Aged about 45 years, Present posted Aamin Mini Mata, Hasdeo Bango Nehru Sambhag —4, Dabra, Distt. Ianjgir (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ‘l} State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Irrigation Dept-t. Raipur (C.G.) Engineer—in—Chief, ‘ Irrigation Department, Shihawa Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Project, Bilaspur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Sub—Division No.4. Hasdeo Bango Dabra, Distt.’ Ianjgir (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. “Ll W XI‘HC—J8 <92 OG . Wp‘NGQOg/ZO0[ 2 WW m was (Wt?) WWW mwm MW. W Wmx ammm $aifmm 02.03.2005 ’ I Smt. Anju Ahuj& counsel fojf the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Jfxdvocate for the State on advance copy. Heard on admission. The petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of show cause notice dated 4.2.2005 (iAnnexure—P/6) issued by Superintending ‘ Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raipur. It is contended in the notice that the petitioner managed to obtain the experience certificate ofAmz'n whi working as adaily wager where as in fact he was working as Sfhal Saha k, and his services were regularized on the basis of said certificate. T e said act has been held to be in contravention of Civil Services Co uct Rules, 1965. l i Learned counsel for the pe itioner submits that the petitioner has neither committed nor participate in any such act of obtaining forged documents from any authority oncerned. No such documents were produced by the petitioner on the asis of which the regularization order i was passed. She further submits tha the petitioner has already filed reply to xxx i l ”semantic,“ XLHC—78 ¥ . WM. 69%?i25a 209 mm (WET) WWW wmmm Wwm ,2w WHW WW $3Wené¥i the show cause notice vide Annexm‘e—PN. The petitioner has challenged the validity of notice on factual aspects. It is well settled that while entertaining writ petitions questioning the to be kept in mind that unless the Court legality of show cause notices, it is is satisfied that the Show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction- of the authority to even investigate into‘ facts, the writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. (Please see 2004 AIR SCW yg. 416 Special Director and _ and anather) (mother v. Mohtl Ghulam Ghtmse In the present case also, the jurisdiction or authority of the person issuing the notice is not under challienge. The validity ofthe notice has been assailed on the factual grounds by the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, present is not a tit case in which the writ jurisdiction can be i x exercised. XI—HC 78 WWW... mm (Wu) Q7 WWW ._g,. mWW§f€étmR €5Wm vatti However, the petitioner is 2t liberty to flle additional reply etc and raise all such grounds, which are zvailable under the law before authority concemed who will consider and decide the same. This Court does not find any merits in the petition and accor dingly, the petition stands dismissed. No orders as to the cost. No. 1275/2005 stand disposed of. 199/2005 and LA. Consequently, M.W.P. No. Certified copy as per rules. Phlw.. SW- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge “Nx‘lx