Utt^Vs.i: Ui.eiiut'S (?---^—2.o-c> IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^^ OF 2010 PETITIONERS .^y// ^t^y -^y ...4y -. <•'' RESPONDENTS 1. Kirtandas S/o Govinddas, aged about 50 years, ^-2. Fagulal S/o dayarara, aged about 43 years, Both are resident of village Ganjai Bhauna, Gram Panchayat Ganjai Bhauna, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, District Raigarh C.G. VERSUS /l. The State of C.G. through the Secretary Panchayat nad Social Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur 2. The Prescribed Authority cum Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, District Raigarh C.G. ^3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad panchayat Sarangarh, District Raigarh C.G. / 4. Chhabilal Netam S/o Mohar Sai, aged about 45 years, Panchayat Karmi Grara Panchayat Ganjai Bhauna, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh -iSi, /5. Gram Panchayat Ganjai Bhauna through the Secretary, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 O^THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORAm ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIP, • -<!•••• -^^•^i KIGH COUKT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETJTION (S) No. 1449 of2010 Kirtandas & another. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : The State ofC.G. & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE. CONSTmjTION OF ENDIA SB: Hon'Me Shi-i Satisli K. AjBmliotn.JI, Present: Sfan Rajesh Pandey, Advoeate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents 1& (Passsd o"x 05U1 day of April, 2010) 1. The petitioner, alongwith 13 otliers had filed earlier W.P.(C) No. 163/2009 wherein the grievance of the petitioners was that the petitioners were not getting rice at the prescribed rate under the scheme. After hearing the leamed counsel for the parties, the case was disposed ofwifh a direction to the Collector, Raipur to look into the matter. 2. According to tlie petitioners, fhe order has been passed and the petitionere ai-e getting rice at the prescribed rate. The petitioners seem to be aggrieved by the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the competent authority i.e. Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Raigarli, whereby a waming was issued to the respondent No. 4, but no fiirtiier action of removal was passed against the respondent No. 4. The petitioners have filed tfais petition seeking quasliing ofthe order passed by the Deputy Director against ttie respondent No. 4. »• 3. It must be made cleai- that the petitioners are neither a goveniment employee nor a people's representative except that they are residents of flie same Gram Panchayat, Gaajai Bahuna. The petitioaers seem to be aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Direetor, wherein a waining has ..^r /"•-^- '»s. ?fc S 4. been unposed upon the respondent No. 4 after p'oper exaimnation. Why the petitioners are aggrieved, it is not known, however, it appears that the petitioners are having a personal grudge against the respondent No. 4. Despite haviiig known that the respondent authorities have taken appropriate action against the petitioner by issuiag a waming, the petitioners have again moved this Court for farther relief against the respondent No. 4. Thus, it appears to be nrisuse and abuse of judicial process. The petitioners have no locus to question the order dated 08.03.2010 as fhe petitioners have nothing to do with the appointment or imposition ofpunishment on a member ofPanchayat service. The petition is bereft of merit and it appears that the petition has been filed to harass the respondent No. 4. Accordingly, the •wi'it petition is dismissed with cost quantified to be Rs. 5000/- payable to the High Court Legal Aid Comiiiittee within a period offrivo weeks. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aimt