§'§i{3§-§ CGQRT SF C?§HATTE$G%R§'§ EAT B§L§SP§§R CGRé‘Wi: HGNsELE SERE mJEEV G§§$§Z£ka CJ 8s H$§‘é’%LE SERI 5% §L K3W’ii-KR 3%?éHA, J. WP. @‘ii‘! N6. 188? a? Ega‘g Petitisner : Raiesh Bissa Aged about :38 yeére SIG Sr§ R753. Bissa Pub 21, Cantrai Avenue (Wegf) Chcubey Cainny Ramur, Chhaitisgam 4§201 Q Vemim Respondent3 1. Siate of Chhaiiisgarh Through the Secretary, PW‘G D.K.$. Ehawan. Raipm, Ch‘nattisgarh. 2. M13. infrastructure Leasing & Fmandai Services Ltd, Mumbai. Pact 0—22, G Block, Bandra—Kur:a Comp§ex, ‘Bandra (east), Mumbai 4G05’i 3. Nava Rainur Bevempment Autheréty Thmugh ks C.E.O., Near SKIS. Bhawan, Mamrawya, Raigur lf‘ NG.) 4. P Jay Omman, AC5. Gavemment cf C.G. Hausing and Envimnment, Chairman NEDA. 8: Pmwsusw ii‘rincinai Secretary, P.W.D., Gcvt afSG. Ra‘pur{C.G.) *3. S‘S. Baiai: CEO. Naya Raipur De¥é§apment Autherity. 6. Emineer in Chief, Pubiic \ v’mks Deaartment, CM Lme, Ramm’ {CGJ 7. LL. & PS. Transportatian‘ Neiwarks id. 1%.. & FE. Financial Centre moi (3-22, G [J\ Biock. Bandra — Kuivia ”Am vunl§1cm ‘«v D uauux$ “Av I \Eacxi, Aa+\ Mumbai 40951. 8. LL. & FE. mirastructure Deveiopment Comoratian Lid”, UQ Fbor, kaninura A k A '1‘ :owers, 2A Bhikaii Cams Ease. New Aik: 4 4f\r’1an cll“ — l IUUUU. Writ Demon under Articles 226 of the Constitution of inciia Present: Shri Saumbh Dangi; ieamed counsel for the mtaioner. Shri AS. Gahaiwan ieamed Additionai Advocate f‘r‘ acriaqs VA f6l vvna- lcaQJHdmnS an Ah; kia wu. 4 x c: 0 Q u. GRDER gm“ Em, 2992) The fonawing 'order of the Court was passed by Rageev Gupta, Cain Heard ieamed counsei for me pames. 2. Pe‘kitmner — Rajesh Bissa, a $pokes-person of Chhattisgarh Pradesh Congmss Committee haS med this writ petition styied as ‘Pubiio interest Litigation’ for the following reriefs :- “(i) That, this Honjbte Court may Kindly be pteased to Gait the entire records pertaining to the instant matter. {ti} It is aiso prayed that this Hon’bie Court may be pieased to direct to conduct an inquiry by an irtdepehdent agency iike CBI against the erring officiai into the aiiegation made by the petitioner. (iii) This Hon’bie Court be further meased ta direct fne concerned authorities to register offences under ihe ?ena§ code again$t ihe erring officers. (iv) TNS Hensbie Court be further pieased {o issue a writ in the nature cf certiorarr quashmg the agreement dated 24—97—96 and 29-91 $7.“ 3. The pe%itioner, in subsiance, is seeking action agarnst responden‘ie No. 4 & 5'. 4'. Far ascertaining the correctness 0f the airegetiene made by the petiriener in the writ petition against reeeondenis Ne. 4 & 5. a ‘Fact Finding Enquiry” weuid be necessary. Such a ’Fac‘i ?inding Enquiry’ can be better conducted by the ‘Lok Aayeg’, who has its own investigation wing. 5. in this View oi the matter, we are of the opinion that it wouid be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the ‘Lok Aayog‘ for the redressai of the petitioner‘s grievances projected in the writ Seii’iiOi’i. 6. With the above observation: the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. The security amount oi Re.5,90i3f— depesited by the petitioner be refunded to the oetiiioner. i Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge i i Sd/-i Chief Justice nh‘Tlml , H.