1 W.P. No. 11280/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA WRIT PETITION NO. 11280/2010 ......... Petitioner Ashutosh Pandey, S/o Shri Dadhival Prasad Pandey, Aged about 34 years, Occupation Shiksha Karmi, Grade III, R/o Churhat, Police Station Churhat, District Sidhi, M.P. Versus ........ Respondents 1. State of M.P. Through Collector, District Sidhi (M.P.) 2. District Magistrate, District Sidhi, (M.P.) 3. Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa (M.P.) ................................................................................................... Petitioner - Shri A.K. Pathak, Advocate. Respondents - Shri Harish Agnihotri, Govt. Advocate. ................................................................................................... O R D E R (05/01/2011) By filing this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- 2 W.P. No. 11280/2010 (i) That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased to issue a writ of cetiorari to quash in impugned orders dated 18.5.2010 (Annexure P/-4) and dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-2). (ii) Any other writ, order or direction deemed necessary be also passed with cost to the petitioner.” The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither the District Magistrate, Sidhi took into account the grievances of the petitioner nor the appellate authority, Commissioner, Rewa has given any heed to his grievances. The contention of learned counsel is that on account of the so called alleged criminal activities of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed under Sections 5 and 6 of M.P. Rajya Surksha Adhiniyam, 1990 for a period of one year. Learned counsel submits that the criminal cases which are referred are either proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. or the cases are under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 332 of IPC but in all those cases, the petitioner has been acquitted. In this regard, learned counsel has invited my attention to the documents which are filed cumulatively as annexure P/1 and hence it has been prayed that this petition be allowed. 3 W.P. No. 11280/2010 2. However, Shri Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the impugned orders. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed but not be cited as precedent. 4. On bare perusal of cumulative orders filed as annexure P/1, this Court finds that petitioner was either acquitted from the charges or he was acquitted by the Court and, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served to uphold the impugned orders passed by respondent no.2 and 3. Even otherwise, it appears that almost the order dated 15.1.2010 has already been given effect to because the said order is going to be expired on 15.1.2011 viz. only few days. Hence the impugned orders dated 15.1.2010 (annexure P/2) and order dated 18.5.2010 (annexure P/4) passed by respondent no.2 and 3 are hereby quashed. This petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE rao 4 W.P. No. 11280/2010 W.P. No. 11280/10 05.01.2011 Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Despite several opportunities were provided to the learned Government Advocate to file return but today by raising his hands, Shri Agnihotri submits that return has not yet been filed. It has been put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner that this petition is going to be expired on 15.1.2011 because the impugned order has been passed for a period of one year which is going to expire on that date. Hence, the prayer of Shri Agnihotri to file the return is not accepted. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Order dictated. Signed and dated separately. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao 5 W.P. No. 11280/2010