$§§§3€§§£ gEMH w {WNW/e IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. w.P. (S) N0. (19$ mm) Kamal Kishore Behra, S/o- Shri Krishnanarayan Behra, Aged about 29 years, R/o- Village-Petla Tehsil-Sitapur, Distt. Surguj a, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development D K S Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. “Chief EXecutive Officer, Zila Panchayat- Surguja, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Sitapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / &GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR g9 WRIT PETI’HON (S) NO.2133 OF 2010 (Writ Petiiion under Articie 226 of the Constitution of ‘ Singie Bench z Han’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ‘ Present :- $hri Pankaj Shrivastava. Advocate for the patitioner. ‘ Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer far the State. ‘ (Passed on this 04‘ day of May‘ 2m O) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sub ORDER (ORAL) mite that by press reiease (Annexure — PH) the petitioner was asked to fiie affidavit i acknowiedging that the petitioner has tiled certain forged documents (fabricated documents), else it was threatened that First intormaticm Report wouid be iodged against him. 2. The issue came into consideration before this Court in Baijnath h & Others“ and other Prasad Gupta v. State of Ghhattisgar connected matters. 3. This Court after considering aii the aspects of the matter, quashed the es therein to do the needful, in accordance with taw, atter affording proper counsei for the petitioner submits that this petition may also be allowed in the same terms. l appearing for the Stateirespondents 4. Shri Ehaduri, p teamed counse press reiease resewing liberty to the respondent authoriti hearing to the petitioners therein. Learned opportunity of bmits that the issue involved is squareiy covered by the clearly su ‘ decision of this Court rendered in Baijnath Prasad Gupta (supra). 1 PETiTiONER Kamal Kishore Behra Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others I have examined the facts of the present ca5e as we“ as the decisioh of this Court rendered in Baijnath Prasad Gupta (supra) and § am 6f g é ihe considered opinion that the facts are identicaL in View of foregoing, the press release is quashed, as the same ehal! net be given effect to. However, iiberty authorities to take appropriate steps after affording proper opportunity of hearing tc the petitioner, if so advised. Needless to say that it is for the parties to take appropriate actien thereafter, if need be, in is reserved to the respondent accordance with iaw. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is aiiowed. No order asto costs. Sd/. / e was, SATISH K. AGNIHom Judge