PetjtiQner Respondents H1GHCOURTOF CKHATTISGARH: B3LASPU Writ Petition (C1 No. 2720 of 2008 Dhanush Prasad Bharadwaj, S/o. Late Shri Guhalal Bharadwaj, aged about 51 years, Caste Satnami at Post viilage Podi, DaSha, PS Akaltara, TahsiS and Dist. Janjgir-Champa (CG). Versus Union of India through 1) Secretary, Home, Ministry of Home, new Delhi. 2) Rajdoot (Ambassador), H.E. German incfu SVS.V.C. of German, Santtpsth Chanakyapuri, G.D.R. New Deihi. 110 021. 3) Secretary. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New DeJh!.Pin11Q021. 4) State of Chhattisgarh through Chief Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, CG. 5) Residency Commissioner, CG Bhawan, New Delhi. 6) The Coliector, Janjgir-Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (CG). (Writ Petition under Articte 226 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Prasoon Chuturvedi, Advocate for the petitioner. yr. R, Pradhan, counseS for the Union of India. QRALORDER (Passed on this 1§ day of January, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeRs a direction to the respondents to get the approval of the claim of the petitioner from Toni Febar. The petitioner further seeks a direction that since the petitioner has resolved the Gold Bach's Conjecture (Annexure P/1), the respondents may ensure that the petitioner is awarded proper price of the same. Toni Febar is not a party in tfiis case. Th@ respondents No. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the functionaries of the Government of india and State and respondent No.2 is the Ambassador of ©ovarnmentof Germany. 2) According to tearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, an advertisement was published under the name "7Tf&lTf ^?r ^ ^T w& V'^f l.e. Gold Bach's Conjecture. The petitioner has suwessfully resoived the conjecture and thereafter wrote a letter to the Gov^rnment agencies through the respondents. On the basis of his resolution, he claims the award and recognition accordingly. There js nothing on record to show that the advertisement was published with sanction of the Govemment agencies. 3) On perusai of the papers, it appears that this is a private advertisement without having any statutory or otherwise legal sanction, but the petitioner without verjfying the facts was tempted to resolve the issue. According to him, he has successfutly done it. Slnce the Government was not invotved in publication of the advertisement as there was no sanction, no writ can be issued to the Govemment. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to establish hisright as legat, fundamental pr any other right, which may be enforceable under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India. 4) In view of the foregoing, tiiis petition is frivolous without any merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Raju Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge