I t ^; :^' ^ 1M THE HIGH COUKT OF CHHAjl'HSGAKH : B1LASPUR Wnt Petition (C) No. 6376 of2008 Petitioners 1, Bhushan Kuxaar Darshati, aged about 46 years, son of Sliri Jeevanlal Darshan, Secretaiy GraBiin Shiksha Vikas Sainiti, Robertson (chaple}7), District Raigarh, Resident pf Village Budeluiiiarpali, Distdct Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Kaahaiyalal Patel, aged about 48 yeai's, Son of Shri Khushirain, Prmcipal, AshashJdya Uchachatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Robertsoii (Chapley) Distdct Kaigarh (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Ctiliattlsgarh, Tlirough : Secretary, Department of School Education, M^iiiualaya, D.K.S. Bhawaii, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Boarci of Secondaiy Educatioii, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Director, School Education, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Disrrict Educauon Officer, Raigarh (C.G.) WKFl^PE'mON UNDERAmiCy^226QF'mE COM^TITUTION QFmDIA, (SB: Hon'ble Slin Satish K. Agnitiotn J.) Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shn Bhaskai* Pyasi, Paiiel Lawyer tor the respondeuts iMo. 8 & 9. 2. O R DE R (Passed on this 24th Day ofNovember, 2008) This is a petition liled by fhe Secretaiy, Graaiia Shil<:sha Vikas Saaiiti aiid the Prmcrpal of ttie Ashaskiya Uchattar Madhyami^: Vidyalaya, Robertson (Chapley), Distdct Raigarh for a clu'ection to ttie respoiidents/authoiities to take over tfie laaiiageinent of fhe entire school. The pemioners had earlier tiled Misc. Petition No. 701/91 ia tiie Higli Court of Madhya Pradesh wnich was disposed of on 4.4.1991 (Annexure P/1) with tiie obser/ation Uiat tiie Society inay approach to fhe State Goveniinent, which niay consider tiie prayer. Thereafter W. P. No. 5139^1997 was tlled ia fhe ^ ^ ^- [ ' --> 3. 4. 5. 6. Thakur High Court of Madhya Pradesh for tlie simllar reUef seeking a direction to th.e respondents to takeover fhe school. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 18.11.1999 (Annexure P/2) disposed of the petition observio.g ttiat "it ttie petitioner makes a detailed representatiou giviag the exact paiticulai^s ot the school which has been taken over aad lurther tiie assets aiid iiabiliUes on Ule uistitution ui detail ttie State Goveninient niay re-consider tbie inatter/' Thereatter, one more petition, W. P. No. 1085/2002 was tiled by the petitioners for the same reMef betbre fhis Court. This Court by order dated 6.8,2003 (Annexure P/3) disposed oftiie petition wiffaout expressiag any opiaion on the raerits of the case, graating Mberty to ttie petitioners to niake a detailed representation befbre tlie concei-ned authority. Itappeai's tliat nothing has happened ia tlie niatter. Suice the petitiioners have filed three petitions earMer, for the saine relief aud aii ttie tliree pefitions have been disposed of with ceiiaio. dttecUons/obser^ations, tlus fourth petition fbr the saiiie reiief is uot inaintaifiable. 1'he attenipt of the petitioners, aiter three petitions, which have already been disposed of with. certain dit'ections/obseivations, aaiounts to abuse and nususe of ftie Judicial process. Thiis, fhis petition is disinissed witti cost, quaatiiied to be Rs. 1.500/- (Ks. fifteen hundred oniy. —— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge