” H (1) é Cr? l6///‘ ) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) NO. é 9&1 OF 2009 PETITIONER/ / : Aniruddh Vishwas,s/o shri, Respondent A.M. Vishwas, aged about £1.14 year's, (Ex-Par’mer') Annapurna K Cons‘rr'uc’rion Company, Ganeshnagar', Bilaspur, Tahsil & Dis‘rr‘icT—Bilaspur' (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /r1. Colony7Wasi, Annapurna Colony, Ganeshnagar', Tor'wa, Tahsil & Disfric’r-BHaspur (C.G.) “A w ”Cm “‘- Rajesh Yelukar, S/o La’re MR. Velukar, Colonizer‘ (Par’rner‘, Annapurna Construction Company), R/o Shanker Nagar, Torwa, Tahsil & Dis‘rricf—BHaspur (C.G.) Pradeep Kumar Rai, S/o La‘re Jagdishc-hand Rai, Occupa’rion- Governmen‘r Service (Parfner, Annapurna Cons’rruc’rion Company), R/o Hemunagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Dis’rricT— Bilaspur (6.6.) The Additional Collector, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (6.6.) / 5. The Sub—Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, District— Bilasp‘ur '(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?L% " MK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetitiOn (227) No. 6761 0f2009 ETITIONER : Aniruddh Vishwas VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Colony Wasi & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AgarwaluL) Present : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Shm' GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for State/respondent No. 4&5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28.01.201 1) Legality and propriety of orders dated 03082009 passed by the SDO (Revenue), Bilaspur in Revenue Case No. 229l/B—121/2008— . 09, and order dated 21.10.2009 passed by the Add]; Collector, Bilaspur, in case Not 02/B—121/2009-10, are under assail in the instant petition. 2. Shri Waswani, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 4 & 5 could, not point out any provisions under which the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 could pass the orders impugned. However, he would submit that in order to maintain law and order, the orders impugned have been passed. 3. A bare perusal of the orders impugned would reveal that vide orders impugned no edective order has been passed against the petitioner. It was simply directed to follow the license conditions else the {\Bt P V14 respondent No, 5 may propose for taking appropriate action against the etitioner. If any thority, treating the above order as direction f the statutory authority, takes any action against the petitioner, the petitione is ot remedy less to challenge the same also on the ground that the respondent No. 5 has no authority in law for such direction. 4, Wit the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. No h order as t costs. o "? Sd/- F N. K. Agarwal Judge . p au o r n