HIGH COURTVOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1836 0f2004 Raipur Timber Merchant Association, New Timber Market, B—4, 5 Sector-II, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Authorised person Shri Mangal Das, S/o Shn' Ramji Patel, aged about 40 years, R/o Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Shri Mangal Das, S/o Shri Ramji Patel, aged about 40 years, R/o Raipur, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONERS : 1. RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Thlough: Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay& Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Seeretary, Depaxtmentof Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhatisgarh. The Collector, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, AT a post Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. The Collector, District Kanker, At a post Kanker, Chhattisgarh. The Superintendent of Police, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. The Superintendent of Poce, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. Bastar Paarivahan Sangh Jagdalpur, Registration No. 3/5 10/73, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Through: Its President Baljinder Singh, Resident of Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Kondagaém Parivahan Sangh, Registration No. 45/5/4006, Main Road Kondagaon, District Bastir, ChhattiSgarh, through Its President Shri Tarsem Singh at a post Bazar para, Kon'dagaon, District Bastar. ‘Kanker Parivahan Sangh, Registration N0. 1557, Kanker District, Chhattisgarh, Through: Its President Virendfa Kot ari at a post Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 10. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITImnN m? mm A VERSUS Parivahan Sangh, Registration No. 1074, Bhanupmtappur, District Chhattisgarh. Bhanupratappur, Dalli Road, Kanker, li Lgu/ i SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri AK Prasad Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents l 1 to 6. Shri V.A.Goverdhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 7 & 8. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21g: day of January, 2009) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 7 to 10, which are registered transport association of District Bastar and Kanker, are illegally realizing money hem the petitioners and are not allowing the petitioners to transport timber h‘om the District of Bastar and Kanker, on the ground that if any transpmtation is required to be done, it would be done by the respondent No. 7 to 8 only. Learned counsel thither submits that the matter has been reported to the police authorities, but they are not taking any action in this regard. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 3. If the‘petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation and the action taken by the Police, he can avail the remedy‘ of filing a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner has not availed the remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner has not availed the‘statutory remedy available under the provisions of Section 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C, it is not expedient to entertain this petition at this stage. he Supreme Court: in the matter ofAleque Padamsee and athers v. Uian oflndia and others’ held that ‘if any pexson £5 aggrieved by the inaction of the police omcials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.’ (Also see Sakirz‘ Vasu v. State ofU.P. & Otherf and Laliz‘a Kumari v. Govt. ofUtTar Pradesh and others3.) The petition is accordingly dismissed, as not maintainable. HOWever, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy availabieunder the provisions oflaw. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1639/2004, also stands dismissed. 1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotli l Judge J 1. (2007) 6 scc m 2. (2008) 2 scc 409 3. (2008) 7 scc 164 Amit T n