p^l 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, LCG.) W.P.(S) N^:s'^/ ^010 PETITtONER: Devendra Kumar Dewangan Aged about 46 years S/o Shri Laxini Narayan Dewangan, R/0 Village & Post Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS m RESPONDENTS: '<:... <g'.'.,' .^S6gs^'a>s^ ,,yyy-^T ~%, ^r"-y^_^^ rf?.^ /^5-WT (• ^ " / ;^..u^;".i.! ' ^. 11 l,"""^"""'-s)! lv ^ . ./ K^// /':.:!^?fty 1.' State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary/ Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Corrurussioner/Director Tribal Welfare Department Govemment of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (CKhattisgarh) <^" 3. Collector District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 4.' Assistant Commissioner Department of Tribal Development Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES2260F^THECONSTITUTIONOF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE J3F ^VPPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- ^ ii'.'ju 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:- As stated above in the cause dfle. h 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:- As stated above in the cause title. "^s^'^-, %'^?^ 'y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.7561 OF 2010 Devendra Kumar Dewangan Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArtide 226 ofthe Consti+ution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Jitedra Pali, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 17th day of March, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law involved in the instant petition is asto whether show cause notice after decision has been taken is sustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that ag&inst the impugned show cause notice dated 29-11-2010 (Annexure - P/1) other similarly situated persons have come to this Court. This Court in Rajesh Kumar Shukla v. Stafe of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters after having considered the issue at length held as under: "11. In the case on hand, there is no statutory provision to provide post-decisional hearing, which necessitates review of the order in full. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case Vi/here admittedly decision to quash the earlier order of promotion was taken befors issus of show cause notice. Thus, showcause notice is vitiated." Thereafter, the notice dated 29-11-2010 was consequently quashed. Learned counsel prays that similar order may be passed in this case also. 3. Shri Ajit Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, concurs with the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner. 4. In view of foregoing, the writ petition 1s al'owed in the same terms of the order passed in Rajesh Kumar Shukla (supra) and the impugned notice dated 29-11-2010 is quashed. No order asto costs. Gowri Satts•.^'^ 3udS< ' WP (S) No.7658 of 2010 (decided on 25-1-2011) 1 1 »;i 4liiliatitr