r IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P (SlNo^O^ of 2010 i3'E |L£ {]^% PETITIONERS :1: / Smt. Rajni Singh-Sarwa, D/o Shri Samaru Singh Sarwa, aged about 23 years, R/o Village & Post-Jawali, Tahsil- Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) Nirmala Yadav, D/o Shri Jivan Ram Yadav, aged about 22 years, R/o Village-Kerajharia, Tahsil-Pali, District-Korba (C.G.) Manish Kumar Kashyap, S/o Shri Kaleshwar Prasad Kashyap, aged about 24 years, R/o Village-Haranmudi, Tahsil-Pali, District-Korba (C.G.) Ram Ratan Sahu, S/o Shri Sudhu Ram Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/o Village & Post- Dhurkot, Tahsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS ~7' RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh : Through Secretary, Departnient of Panchayat and Rural Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) .-4"' 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pali, District-Korba (C.G.) - ' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA fc^ t/ 8^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.7136 OF 2010 PETITIONERS Smt. Rajni Singh-Sarwa & Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(QRAL) (Passed on this 17th day of January, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.5772/2009 (Khelan Singh Kanwar & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) impugning the cancellation of appointment order dated 29/09/2009 of the petitioners. 3. This Court after hearing all the concerned parties, quashed the impugned order by its order dated 12/01/2010 on the ground that the order was passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. However, liberty was reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action/steps in accordance with law, if so advised, after complying with the basis principles of natural justiceand fair play in action. 4. Pursuant thereupon, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pali, District-Koaba, passed the impugned order dated 04/09/2010 (Annexure P/1) wherein itwas clearly stated that the notices were issued to the petitioners on 22/03/2010 and thereafter, again on 02/04/2010. Despite notices to put forward their cases, the petitioners have failed to respond to the same and as a result, the impugned orderwas passed. i"l;^-.. '%. »i'^ ^ l' ^-..'-^;s» Arun 6. 2 On perusal of the documents and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, 1 do not find any irregularity, illegality or perversity in, the order herein as the petitioners were afforded opportunity of hearing and the petitioners have failed to respond to the same. Even otherwise, it seems to be a case of production offorged documents. In viewofforegoing, without making any observation in respect ofthe nature ofthe documents, the petition is dismissed as having no merit looking into the conduct of the petitioners, as despite two notices issued to them, they failed to respond to the same. In the result, the writ petition being bereft of merit, is liable and is herebydismissed. No order asto costs. — ~~ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t,ll' ^.