^^ HIGH COIJRT OF CHHATriSGARH A'l' BILA8PUR WRITPETmON (C) _No, 5015 of2009 PETITIONER : Ameen Khan S/o Late Mohd. Yaseen, aged aboat 53 years, Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Majdoor Congress (RCMC) Baikunthpur Area, R/o Churcha Colliery, Dist:Korea(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. South Eastera Coal Fields Ltd., Through The ChairmaB Cum MaiMging DireGtor^ Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The Chief General Manager, South Eastem Coalfields Ltd, Baikunthpur Area, Dist: Korea (C.G.) 3. The 8ub Area Manager Churcha Colliery Ghurcha, SECL Baikunthpur Area< Dist: Korea (C.G.) . WRTT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONST1TUTION OF INDIA 8B: Hon'ble Shri Satfsh K. Asirihotri, A Present: Shri A.N.Pandey, Advocate for fhe petitioner ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 04U1 dayof September, 2009) This is a petition filed by the Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Majdoor Congress (fbr short 'the RCMC') seeking a directioii to the respondente to take appropriate action againM the unauthorized connection of powet iised by tfae unauthorized persons at Churcha Colliery. The petitioner. being the Secretary oft RCMC has to l<x>k after flie wel&re and mterest of the employees who are the niembers of the petitiarier- Congress. The case of the petitioner is that flie p^itioner-Coaigress has to F~~ 4. imt see that the management shoiild not misuse its power by grantmg conne^tion to some unaufhorized persons. Contention ofthe petitioner that fhe petitioner is to look after the administratioti ofthe management also, is without any basis. It is not the case of the petitioner-Congress fhat fhe employees, who are fhe members of the petitioner-Cong^ess, bdng sirnilariy situated., have not been granted electric connection thou^h fbe other persons in the similarly situated circumstances have been granted comiection, Itiswell settled prmciple oflawfhatthe High Court shouldnot mdiilge irto a n>vmg ^xiquiry ofthe facts which does not disclose any cause @f action- yrhis is not for the High Court to have a roving enquiry mto the aJEFaijrs of the respondent-Coalfields. rfhe petitioner has further not made oirt a case asto how tlie right ofthe petitioner is infringed by action oftte respond^nts. The petitioner has not made out a case for interference by this Court. Thus, this petition being devoid ofmerit is accx>rdmgly distoissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge