fflo| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. IhS-^«J2003 /" PETmONER Firm Ganeshilal Gulabchand through its Sole ProprietorMaturam Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Gulabchand, aged 69 years, R/o NearRailway Station, Naila, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS ..-- '^ . ^>^-f ...^y ^\^^:>9:'':"" '^\9'01 ^:y^>v ^v r' ^^ 2. 3. 4. Ashwani Kumar, S/o Lalaji, aged about50 years, Occupation- Business, R/o Village-Champa, Tahsil & DistrictJanjgir-Champa Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) Deputy Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 22^ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT. ORDERS OR DIRECTION. A._ .XI-HC-22 's^ r^ii<4i<n^ ?PT, ^IW®,1^WT5( ^n^r^r ^w^rt^ ^rHW'ffl^a 3^r ^^K ^....^I3.m.l.........^ 200^ WR^II^^S^ •^re^T' ^nt^T'^iTW^f^ 13,02.2004 <+l^fd4)-S ^INdf "^ 'fe<^ <i^t$i< ^a^FTsn^i Shri Rajeev Shrivastav^ Hearcl. The petitioner has prefe , couiisel for flie petitioiier. |rred fliis writ petition under Articie 227 of -fclie Constitution of l4dia rather the petitioner has been forced to file fhis writ pe| Coustitutioii of India in unij the part of thc Szib Divisiou^ part of the Additional District The brief facts leadiiig that respondent No.l who is tition under Article 227 of fhe sual cu'cumstaaces and laxity 011 ^l Officer, Jaiijgir aiid also ou the |& Sessions Judge, Janjgir. jto fil iiig of fliis writ petitioii si'e jtenant of the petitioiier nioved aii application for fixatioii of st^iidard reiit ia the Court of Rent ControUmg Authority, Jaajgirj aiid the Authority had pass^ /Case No.l-A/-90(2)/1981-82.1 fhe Rent Cojo.troUiiig Aufhorit}| ^appeal before fhe Additioiial AddL District Judge dccidec^ reversed fhe order of fhe Rent Agahist tlie orcler datedj had filed a Misc. Second Appe^l bearing No.54/1987 befoi-e the fhen High Court of M.P., JabaJipur and fhat appeal was decided |ie, Sub DivisiouaJ OfScer, Jaiijgir |d aa order dated 07.06.1982 m Beirig aggrieved by the onler of the petitioner hereio. prefeiTed aa pistrict Judge, Bilaspur aad the fhe saine on 12.12.1986 and pontroUiiig Autliority. [12.12.1986 the rcspondent No.l on 17.07.1992 aad High Co^irt remaiided thc case back to accordaiice witli tlie order pa Additional District Judge, Bil^ispur for decidmg fhe appeal m ^sed by tlie High Court aiid the +- XI-HC-S -y^ •^^•Tm, ^IW"^, ^it^^r •t^^'3T!t^ J • •^?N7^^ 1 ^l[.:^.a.il^ ^w ^t^'i^m^t^-- ° z~ District Judge, Janjgir number| Sub Divisional Officer i.e. Rent records of fhe said case and inl the Additional District Judge, ^^-^•Tf;^1t case was received by fhe Coi|rt of Addifcional District Judge, Jaxi.jgiron 18.03.1999. Since thc case was ren|aadcd back, the learaed Addl, jof ttmes sent re.quisitions to tlie poHtroUing Authority for sending jtum SDO, Jangu' has intimated paajgir tliat the relevant record was aiready sent to the Additioi|al District Judgc, BUaspur, then again fhe Addl. Distt. Judge, Collector for seiiding the recordl to Sub Divisional Ofiicer, Jaiygl: anjgir sent a requisltion to the Court. The Sub Divisional Opicer, Jangir iaforaied vide its comm^mication dated 08.11.21) Judge, Janjgir that the relevantl to 2ud A.D.J., Bilaspur on 03.08i has not been received and a^ cormsel for the petitioner smce t|ien tlie matter is pendiag before the Additional District Judge, Ja|ijgir. peUUoner submits fhat on rccoixls aad maction on tlie Leamed counsel for ttid accounf of non-availabiiity of tl| part ofthe concemed autiiority l|ie matter is still pendmg and it has not been yet decided, In the facts aad circLimst^nces the ^^. District Judge, BUaspur mider whose jurisdictij)n both courts at Bilaspur & Janjgir falls is dirccted to coiaiuct aii enquiry m order to ascertaia the availabiltty of thejconcemed recoid and if anv aiid tlie Collector wrote a. letter to seud fhe records to tlie said )00 to the Additional District irecords havc atreadv been sent |1982 aiid tliereafter tlie re-corcls per the statement of leanied l^i^ ^l' XI-HC-22 3?T^T"^)T R'l[oh 371^? ^uN^ ^Ra ^^t"<" =F 's^S ^ww^, ^Ti1<i^<o, f®i<nt<i^< 3??t^T 'q^? WW^tI^W^,.y..e..:'S.^g.^.3^ ^ 'I^ST' 371^?T'^HW^f^T pajrt Oven conderaed l^ip^e is» found on the action be iaitiated agaujist couducted expeditiously records is not traced out Distiict Juclge is dii'ecteclj opportunity to atl the copies of the docuiHents expeditiously biit uot later Witli fhe aforesaidl petition starids disposed ofl In view of the above hearing staiids disposed 0^ Certified copy as per|Rules, of aiiy eraployee theu fhe proper thein aad enquiiy should be Aiid if for any reason the relevant after eiiqutsy tlien the Additional to reconstitute the file after givmg parties and obtsio. fhe relevaut ^TOWL fheni, This should be done ^- tlian thrcc inonfhs, observations and directions, fhe joider, I.A. No.lQ27^/2003 for urgeiit pr)l<4t<n<i)'rj ^I<-I<A* "^ i^st <r3i^i< ^TSri^FT^n^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [1[ft^ ^Rsi^ w