51 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUFIE CHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR 18MSH3N.BEN6.M CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH, J. WritPetition N0,410 OF 2006 PETITIQNER Sham Sher Bahadur Singh, s/o. Late Ran Bahadur Singh, aged about 64 years, Retired Assistant Stertistical OfRcer - Kawardha (C.G.) Permanent Postal Address : C/o. Smt. Tara Devi Singh, Near okl post ofltee, Sukhpura, EMstt. Ballia (U.P.) RESPQNDENTS VERSUS 1. State of ChhatUsgarh, through Secretary, Department of Planning and Stertistics Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director, Planning and StaUsUcs, Koshalya Compound, Mahila Potytschnic Byikling, Baron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. EXstrict Planning and Stafecs Officer, Coilectorate, New Building, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) Present: Mr. Sham Sher Bahadur Singh, petitioner in person. Mr. Utkarsh Venna, l^irned Dy. GA for the State. ORALQRD6R {Passed on 25 January 2006) The followng oral order of the Courtwas passsd by S.R. NAYAK, CJ: £xfade, ftis writ peBUon is not mainteinable for more than one reason. !n wsw of the arrest and detention of the peUUoner for mors '^^ "^ - z 52 than 48 hours, the Director, EcoQomics and StaUstics Department, M.P., Bhopal, (now at Raipur), the 2nd respondent herein passed an order on 29.09.2000 as per Annexure - P/1 ptacing the p^Uoner uneter suspension in terms ofthe serwce rules. The petffiwier being aggrieved by the said order ofthe 2rt respondent preferred O.A. N0.319/2001 to the State Administrative Tribunat at Fiaipur and that OA. was dismissed by the Tribunal by tts order dated 05.07.2002. Being aggrisved by tha said order, ths petitioner prsferred W.P. No.15360002 to this Court and this Court by ils order dated 17.07.2003 disposed of that wift p^ition wfthout quashing the order of ttie State Administrafive Tribunal dated 05.07.2002 made in OA No.319/2001. The order made by the State Adminisfratiye Tribunal has become final. The order made by ttiis Court on 17.07.2003 in W.P. No.1536/2002 has also become final. The State Administrati'/e Tribunal as well as this Court have sustained the order made by the 2 respondent dated 29.09«2000 ptacang the peSUoner under suspension. If this is the factual posltion, we are at a toss to undsrstend how the petitioner again by way <rf this writ peUtton can chaitenge the same ordsr made by the 2" respondent and that of the State Administrative Tribunal. There is ons mora weighty reason for us to dismiss the writ peStron in h'mirw. S'uwe the order made by the DMsion Bsnch of this Coyrt on 17.07.2003 in W.P. No.15360002 has become final, the correctness of the same cannot be carwassed in this writ petiBon before an<rther coordinate Divisfon Bench. The obsep/ation made by the Dwision Bench, reserang fiberty to the petiBoner ttiat hs may approach the Court by way of a fresh pefiUon if he has 'any other grievancs' would not entitle the peUUoner to fite fresh writ peUUon 'r-»-T"~~ 3- 53 challenging the very same order of the 2 responclwt when that order was alrsady afRrmed by Ifte State AdministraBve Tribunal and the Dhflston Bench of Ihis Court. Looking (rom any angte, this writ petition is misconcewed and not maintainabte and it is accordingly dismissed. No -—costs^_.,,_,,,... , <-' Sd/- Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Juclge ^