o^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIGAtljRE AT BILASPUR rc.G.v WRTT PETIIION N0. ^132.. / 2004 PETITIONER A^4^ ^^&y^- ^v ''/•^•''> ^^t ^^ Dihudas Sahu, S/o Late Shri Ch6tB<las Sahii, aged .a£out50 years, K/0 Vyiags fa<feaiHara, Post-Pendri,Tefasil&District Rajnandgaon, Chliattisgarh ^^o RESPONDENTS: ^ERSUS 1. State ofCfafaattisgarh ^ nH-ough th®Secretaiy, .A^ietlltareVefsstiBeQt &fantralaya, D.iE.S; Bfaawaa Raipur,(C.G.) 2. TlieMaHagmgDu'&tfor ^ Chiiattisgaili'State; Agrieulturai MarketiiBg Board, RaipurC.Gi. 3. Ilie Deputy DHector Agrieu^BralMarketmg surC.G. 4. Tt®Collector DistrictRajaaiBidgaBB, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) 5. AmntLal Yadu SeCTgtaiy,KrisluDpaj M3B^SSass6,'(sasSai, ©istrictRajiiandgaoDcC.GT. l:> THE-im.'rss® GESTI0RAKI.^ND ARF¥ OR ORDERS. '• : , •: 1:: ':' •-:.:..-:;'.., :;':.:: .- ^ ;. The pet'tiQDsr nanied ab"ye i'es{S®tfifllysttbnuts fhe pqi;feigalffl's ofthepetition as imder: - ,a- 21 ^"r T*ii<<isa';<,^®tiratis, ^^^,. -afn^T"ra^ (•j'li^iyf) sn^rwRs-riii WII 31RR[ 9>^W IWTW ^fta 3iA?r dbted Direcltor ),1.2005'' .'''-' .::'::;1';':'. On a mention being made, +h< Shn Alok Oewangan, courisel |for Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Deputy ^ovt. The petitioner has prefen 226/227 oftheConstituTionofIhdia iegali'fy of the shpw cau^notice 1) issued by the Aftdnaging Marketing Bodrd, Raipur, whereby cause that on ocGDuntof the threle notice whv acfion should not be the Oihattisgdrh Krishi Upaj Mandi I have heard i&imed couhsel admission. Leoirned counsisl fop the pej notice hcs been issued merely^on further submits that some irregu|arj'ti Secretary of the Krisht Upoij Mandf meeting dated 22nd ^March, 200^, inspection o-f^ the work wmich wa^ inspection gross jpreaularjtieswer^ the Aftoihdi 'Sami'Hii as he was qti^.flqh fl04<r?f^T fs^ <fat'$i< %.difdH3n^T ... ca^ js taken up for hearing. thepelitjoner. 6|ovt. Advocate for ttie Starte. i^d this writ petition under Article [^jdia, questjonirig the correctriess and lsr Oecember, 2004 (Annexure P- ', Chhattisgarh State Agpicuitural '(+iapeTitJonerhasbeenasked to ^iow •^e pbints mentioned in ttie show cause t(iiken agajnsthim under 5ectiph %of lAdhiniyam, 1972. for the petitiorier on the question of 1-jtioner submits that'rfie show cau^ t'he grouhd of ,forged (ipcuments. Me i|arjties were being conunitted by the Samiti, &dngargaon dnd in the Samiti it wa^ decided to conduct ajdden m progress in Atendi Wid during the noticed on 1+ie part of Secreteryof iflmg ^g00^3 for his personal profit, Gi; PH)—FS/350—120000—50,000. K.yi s v ^jAiouia^s^^'uouMioi^^j^.^j^ S!—0££/Sd- IRAouiaj i.jans UQ^DUD saii+np sit) ^o sepDtjssip 6yi®c].to^ 4o Aap sitj uuo.j.^ad 04. A|.i3ijcfa»u! M^ 'aoi.j.j.o sit) uio^ 3a(4jiuuio» uDiM.iiDij^Auo aAouia.i /fouu J04.3s>ijo 6i gg uoi.j.sss ^o (g) upi+sas-qn? sj 'gj qjD6s!uot|43 alft •'apun uoisiAo^d^it 4-inp3 sit^ tpoojddD 04 p3j4.Li.ua .(.ou Bwssod ajo^sq puo 'uoLj.i+ad +J^M S!t)+ i 6ui6ouo% si|+ a.io^scj s+uibd asOtJft. aiU. 'asi+ou ^nOT W>ot|s 31.14. ^jda^oj asnio Motjs at|+ +SUID6D 4|a<'aw +^nff;? toi|+ s^iuiqns atjroOApy •+A00 /+ndag •pSito+ssq Rinotj^ 6ui||03 s+uapuocis&i ai|4. J.o uoiiso B ui jauotj.i.i.sd a4t. au»!|duii 04. .isp.io Jo+saiiQ SuiGDUo^y.at^i sjio.pq ^lauoLj.u ^jo+aosg pnosstjj. 'j.iasuijtj aADs p+.ot umyw Suipuoiusp frOOZ'fr'Z uo 4yio|duio3 D t0>4(. 04. 4.uanb3suo:» puo | uixpB 6u!^i»(: JA(. uQi4.n|Osaj t?oo3"£"2i attt. .IOIS^IIQ . li^lKs f.lyioi^ , , • •>li»to[l |?>S] J< jl.ihlh i.jbl.ljbllb 314). ui sstiuai X(+ua4S!S4ad tjclooui .16 ^.o 433|6au Jo 43nPliowlu p.3»)JRUI O j.O UDUIU10113-33JA ^10 IIISDUDW aii+i, +oi|4. gs6p?jAua ipitjWt tfit 'UIDAlUltjpy jpUD^/ Todn ltjSM)i l(PA3|a.l 'UOjpauUCO SILJ4. UI •asi+ou asrao moip 844. +suio6o si jauoi+j+sd ai4(. 'uspjo inuij. AUD |^j pasiD.i ussq aADtt Lpii|M ^o+s&iiq |o SSIEU <4 p3|4.!.!-U3 si tOUoi+i+sd 4.t|6jU Sll) UK.I.I.IflA Sl 3t| pUD S3!!+OU >it|4, paipDOddtto soL|.i3uoj4J+'ad 3144. Ipaujlo) 'puD^j.iati+o 344. UQ aSnt»MOL|so4.Jsuo4!4.acl3t|4.uodn 'a.ioj^.iaij^ •jauuoui pai.ooauos |ui s+usuinsop pa6j<y. pajodaid puB |.ad 3L|4. 4.SUID6D suoi+o6a||D pa|jaAa| ^io uj "Am+adsias pics 3144. +sui»6B SuiBouovy 31,14. 04. apoui sow ossod som Aio+a^oas at|+ ^01060 •s-! ^bp siuiK ai|4: uo 'sjoj.ajaiy^ ^ l.syfe C2]»Vlkll»i -jrad'lTb V. "~i. -f IblltlB Itbllc. IhB IBII.SI llto IVyiv jbfc) ^tfeich ^ft^Ke ^o6& >'RK-ipig'.'s>R^e 'h.t.iifriiyiso.^ zz 23 ^-<ll4tl<;1*t,^fll'M'lS,is)Sll<1li< .....^.^i.ial.S 3n^5i'<CT^(" sn^ivt R-iKb ^naiI^sCTN' fr^ '^RH^ "^?? sn^r for re-eleefiori as fihairniCBi 6r Vic^-Q'iail'mah duririg "the-Fefflincler of'his term 6f office as member of marki (2) further envisages that ''provicl fet committee ; Provisft to^sub-section Ifed •tiial' no orcter of rernovai shdlt be pasaed unles^ the ChcMitnon or yKJe-Ghdirnvan, as the isase may be, has been given g reasonafcla oppor^n^ of showing cause why sych ordep should not be passecl". Perusdl of the notiee dated the said notice hds been issued V tha* dmount <was deDosited by Inspector Seed Supervisor afterj Shulk of Rs.5,000/- which was col ct)raf?i*i1^ tnH<nT ^f l^l<i1 <T^R^l< ^sifiRiail^T i'-:. : • t.12.2004 (Annexure P-t) shows that ^ "the petitiorier unyer Seetion 55 o'f the Chhattisgarh Kfishi Upaj A^di Adhiniyam, 1972, on^ ^ grounds menttoned in't+le netiee it^etf, first- of which AowS thaf eertein amount of ^;2,93^ vi^ ho^G^osil^ 'by the^^p^ one AAonoharlal 5emhle, Assjstant nine months. Simiidrly, The i(Aondi teffted fffim M/s. New t>aga Traders, Singhbla^ ori^ 14.7.2003 wiMnb¥;de^sitedi?n^ascun was 'deposited by one Naresh ,dlle9ation is •that the^petitioneF'tio Yadu from Shyam Shyklaahdouto antf the rest of the mpney is said | The petitioner has been as|<ecl''tei three allegatibns wjthin seyen daysi SecttOn 55,itfte^ft<M'iogJ"g i>ii'eetot] cuT<Jariflri 17^7.2003. Thethir^ |»R a idan of Rs.20^00/- ^hpou^n AA.. •.^•- .••••..-. •• . • . . • . . • . - p whieh ohly te;l0^00/-y»asretumecl 1v ^owe been^gjven.t®the Secretiiry. e?<plain and show causedbout •t+iese ^'Therefo^.ww^^^^^s^ .'•1'.. ^(iM't'hSrBiKl to "take delion for'stlie pt. PHJ—FS/350--12/2000—50,000. '^ '3^,-4i*iicTC[, ^®'(i)'y?is,.^fii'y'^'!. s. 3:|I^I 'qaqT (•jc|[^q^d) 3{I^f ^TR'li* T^ cpif[ ^ff^sff a*ffl L. --^. jncapacjtY miscondyct or n^jtect- or incapaq condition is -rtiat •t+ie Chctirman op must have given show cause nofjce] The nojice impugned hias^ been petitioner has been asked to give complidnce of any tnai'idgtory provj^ petitioneras Bas t>een riaised by enquiry has been tnjtiatedon the petitio'ner jsentitled to file repfy 0'rtier points, whicn are awiiiabie Oirectpr after' consiclenng att ifie decide tiie olbjectwn, that too af ^iowjng couse to ttie gietitionef. In thjs cpririectien, decjsion matter- of Speciial l>irBC*or and another rqwr-Ted 5n 3004 A Court hasheld that t^ SCW writ petitions questj|sning cause notices staiiingl retarding investi9ative with the participation parties is depreeoted;| satisfied'that the shttw non est in the eye of lJt:ff9R]_LFS/350—12/2000—5a000. tt)n[<*Tiif1t *fi^<nf ^f 'fs^'^f^R^IT ^i'aifilH'DlSll - to perform hjs duty. 'TTie only tt|e yiee-Qiairmarr; as the case may be, jbefore passing any order of removal. ^iven .under •fhis provision (tnd the ^tis reply, therefore, •riiere is n6 non- fons. .As fdnds the attegattons isf 1+)e |e|M<rie<icounsel for •Hi6 petitioher- •rtiat sltrenglti of •the forged documents, 'i+ie 1+ie Managing &irector alpng with alj; |»tha petitjoner/ ^d;^e,Mdnaging [pointg^roi^ by the^jsietittoner sholl ^er' giving reasonabie ODportunity ofr pf 1+ie Hon'bl& Apex, Coyrt jn the arlothtir v. Mohd. ^utlafn 6house and 4t6, is relevant in wtiich ;1+ie^Agex; legality of •tfte show enquit-ies as proposecf and process to find oictuar facts anci in the piresence of ihe Unless, •rtie High Court is cause noti<a was •twt'ally! low for absolut®wont of. K : 25 XI-HC—78 ^^ '^WM^, WWkS^^-^'WWff.. ^ 3(I^tl1ch-(' 311^1 W ^•U'h '?TaH S^^! Sft*1!<^ •~^ ^iRR^lftaCT^I s-1 iurisdiction: of the info fdcts, writpelitipns Aoulc! not b&sntertQinsd for the mep& askin^ and as a ntatter' of routine, and the writ peljifioner shouy invariably be directed to respond +p •the show cause notice and take ail stands hyhligh-ted jn -tfie writ petitioR. cdyse notice was founded on Whether the dibw any leggl premises cari even be urgetf and such issues aii |is a jurisdictional issue which (?y •riqe recipient of 1+ie notice |o ccm ^be sdjudicated 1;^ 'nierefore, in tight of thej cindalso lookingito the^^^p Chhcrfli^al^^KNSBfUpojAtandtj stand disposed o¥. <?tt<<[ct4ii '^T^H'^ rs*<i;<[^t$« ^stRnsD^i. author'ity ft> even-investigute authprity issuihg tl-je yery nqtice initiatly, - before •rtie (^grieved could 4pRrgach l+ie Court'." dbove judgment of the Supr^me Court pf.sub-secticin (2)af Section 55 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1°72, I am^O'f the opinion that thiS writ petition isnot rtKiitjtaindBleonlY Qn this petition is dismissedtit the aclmis^ionstB9e itself. No costs. Consequently, M.(W.5P.N{).S07%?2004 and I.A.No.9552/ZOi04 Sd/- l..C.Bhadoo Judge