(?^ .- .^\<;^— IN IHS HIGH COURT O? JEJDICA'FURS A'T BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PBTTTiai N0.^j~7-5- O? 2004 BETWEEN Jagdish Erasad ^irivastava , aged about ysars, S/o Late Siri Narmada Erasad Shrivastava, Betired Assistant Grade .I (aoSown), Besident of airga Ctiowk, Mahasamund, •Eshsila and Distriat Mahasaraund (03). PE'TITIONBR A N D 1 • Ihe Zonal Manager, Sttod CDrDoration of 3tidia» west Zone, Murabai (Maharashtra). 2« Ohe senior Regional Manager* TOod oorporation of 3hdia, Bing Boad, junctton, N.H. 6, Near Railway Crossing» Telibandha, Raipur (03). 3. 'Sne Btstrict Manager» •Eood osrporatlon of aidia, Madina Biilding, Katuchury cbowk, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CX3). ^1^\ s\> ' .\^^.^y ^-St^' ^^;.>" RESPOMDEHTS - ^ TfW ai^fWqW ^l':;:.^ .^•'si' 3^'^tAtlS''{;'^WWi^,"f®l'<'[K-lly s&i.M.^^..^..9.S...^. 19.01.2005 Shr'i^Shailendr'a S0ni,4ounsel fortRe^etitioner. Shri Sandeep Dueby adyance copyl. Heardj I.A.no.5795/2004-far yegrs in reaHzingthe origiho. petitiOnerdgainst^-thehousi^locin. I* is 'stated by -rti&'; al leged perjociofabove 3 4 responsible as they had fi^ %T^J^<ft'fll HW<^ ^ T^S^ Tf^R^t ,'i? srfw sfi^?i • '; Panel Ldwyer appears for the State on urgent hedr'ing is allowecf. ' 'Heard;' ;-^ The peti't'ipner is aggr|eved by the allegeid inaetion on the parf orf Fesponderrtefflo.2 <& 3 who hoj/ecaused deliberote deldyof^m sale deed wMch hds'been mor'tgaged bythe (letitioner tftal' due to iriordinatei delay of |ysaps fhe petitioner Kas syffered "j'inancial w f:i loss to the tune' Qf'Rs.51.,0(tQ/- and for that respondents no-2 |& 3 are led to discharge their official obligations honest^. ^T^^ re^tefs <^}wm o^^^^^^'^^ substantially a iSum of Rs.§l,OQO/- Kas been. claimed as thel ainount of clamagesfrorRrespondents^rj6.2'and^3, ' ;• ^ |. .'^'i .It is;f1^e^Seftled .pqinciple .of law thcrf the^^^^H exercising tli&jurisdiction i^ldep Article 226/227 o'f-the ConstiMitionl sfi Indja,<:arinotmitiateorcoi^uctarovirigenqutryintothe,rn^f^r il1BI ^T'^Miiai, ^Tiiy'Ko, faoiyy .iK^.t:.:...^;!.^.........^.. 3II^txR?i'('jqt^l!«5<l) i i; <!<iSw"qiTRsii°b WWSW^tsj'li* ;£?. TOIWtiflhf 3(1^1 a.-- are based upon accuse of action, arid thedispyted issuesoffactsdr^tobe^iecided therein. Considering fhe facts and considering[ tljie ndtyre^of qllegatio claimed in The writ petition, this petition omd it deserves to be dism Accordingly, the petition i itself. Mowever, the petitipner i^ <*wfs<<fi-( iwi'ff if 'fs'attftn^R ^7 SifiCT OT^T whieh renders to filing 6f a civil syijt 'circumstances of the case and alsd \\s and further cohsidering the reliefs Court is of the opinion that the wra-f- petition is nOtmaintujnableforSLJchapelief as claimed in the presenl- Issed. ! ? , :'' ' •• ::;:^|' ^ dismissed at the admissionsfage; fre&.to ayail appr'opriate remedy Jnl accordance with law. Consequently, M.W.P.No 2^01/04 ond I.A.No. 579S/Q4ilstani idisposedof, . ir II Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judse FS/350—12/2000—50.000:: i'