IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. NO. - L4 2007 \ : 1... Bhuneshwar Mahalwar, S/o Late Petitioners Narayan Singh Mahalwar, Aged about 45 years, R/o In front of Mahavir School, Shikshak Nagar, Durg (C.G.) 2. Vinayak Tamrakar, S/o Niranjan Shankar, Aged about 38 years, R/o Tamer Para, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS , ‘v y espondents : 1) State of Chhattisgarh — Through the Secretary, Department of Home Ministry, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Superintendent of Police, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3) The Station House Officer, PS Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Mahant Yagyanand Brahmachari, S/o Gurupita Shri Mahant Gautmananda Brahmchari, Aged about 54 years, R/o Kiia Mandir, Math, Tamerpara, Durg (C.G.) Mahant Gautmananda Brahmachari, R/o Kiia Mandir, Durg (C.G.) $ ” F? WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f XI—HC—78 @ 33W,m,m WW1 f:§.€m9.‘2 m 2009 Wm<W> W$IW mmm mmwm mmi‘fmm émf§wm 8.E.2007 Shri RR. Patankar, cm Hgard.. msel for tha patitiontars. Grievance of fhg petitioxmrs is that respondents No. 5 and 6 was. managing Kila MarLdir, Burg and th€y haw bean misusing th€ 161111316 propex’ somE resentmEnt anmngst because of this resentment d groups and reports alxd co rival groups, However, fhe 1 respondent No. 5 agajllst i been. taken against the respo of the. petitioners. With thf made in this petition that th in a biased manner and protection at the temple preii I have heard learned perused the petition as also 1 From perusal of the } documents annexed with tht 1V, as a resuh: of which there is the residents of the localitv and ispute arose between the two rival timer—reports were lodged by the Dolice took action at the behest of he petitioners but no action has ndents No. 5 85 6 on the complaint se avennents, a'prayer has been e respondents be restrained to act the petitioneis be. given police 1136S. counsel for the petitioner and he documents annexed herewith. )1eadings in the petition and the 3 petition, it appears that there is > I i l 1 x t P.T.O. XI—HC—78 : H2mma%§§wwm; Em$g 024/ Wm a? 200—7 WW(W) mmm WWW EamRH%aa&$ WW§1®$WR éxmm some disput€ between th€ local residents and reepondents No. 1agement of the temple. On the basis of the Court is of the considered o; interference bv this Court 1m of Int‘zia. The petitioners are proceedings] complaint agair the competent authorities. 5 & 6 with respect t0 the maj facts alleged in the petition, this inion that no case 1S made out for der Article 226 of the Constitution at liberty to J‘iie the appropriate tst. respotidents No. 5 &. 6 before With the aforesaid obs‘ :rvations, the petition is dismissed S'd/— Dhirendra Mishra Judge at the admission stage itself. ‘_m P.T.O.