(Lo/3 tw'L> 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( s ) No. KI$$0 0f 2009 {garmanand Shah S/o Shri Udai Shah, aged about 39 years, (terminated from the post of peon) , R/o Jora Talab, behind Family Planning Office, Sipat Road, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (CG). a/ Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Co—operative Societies, Raipur (CG) . 2. “The Registrar, Co—operative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Near Agriculture College, Lalbhandi, Raipur, Tehsil and District Rajpur (CG). 3. Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Head Office, Bilaspur, Through its General Manager . Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, Near Mungelinaka,‘ Tehsil . and District Bilaspur (CG). PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: 1 . Chhattisgarh, ‘Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226‘ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Hs'GH C3UR?Q ' ‘SHHATESGfARH : SiLAgFUR WRIT PETiTwN (3} NO.%3313 C‘F 2909 \N J/ (Wrii aeiition under Ad§cie 22$ 0f ihe Consiiiuiion ef mdia) Singie Bench : Hcn’bie Shri Sai§sh K. Agnéhoiri, J. Presen’: :- Shri Rakesh Amhonv. counsei far ihe netitioner. S NN. Ray: Pane? Levi/ye! for the Safe. Si. Kaafmi, cmm$e§ far ihe i‘espcndems N03 & 4. GRDER (ORAL? {Passee' an ihés 6t” my nf November, 2039) 1 Wikh ihe ccnsent cf ieameé counsei awearmg §er {he padies‘ the geiifkm is heard mam. 2. Learned csunsei awearing f0: me {seiiiionef submiis ihai puisaam m ’me arder daied 1?'—T-2i)08 {Amexure — W1) passed by ihis Cam in WP. No.4313 of 2994 (Premawmi Sigah & Amther vs. me Séai'e 0f Chhamsgarh & Ofhem}, ihe Depmy Reg§5iraf haS passed me cfder daied 184—209? {Amzexure ~ PJZ. Learned counsei, Wéiham §mg§ugning the ezfier daied 18—1-2%G?, sabmiis mat as ihe ewe? has beef: passed 0f: a iechaicai grounds therefme ihe {aspm‘ndem Ne. ()A IQ may he direcied ie éecide the case 0f the §eiii§0ner cn mems. According to the peiiibney. i‘ne ewe? has been Qasse& 0?; technicai grounds. Someiimes iechnica€ grmmds aisc became par: m“ mam. Wifhoui impugning the said oréer daied ’i8—i—260‘i, the pe‘mmaer wanis ihai this Coim‘ may quash ihe emaf ami make a dkesiha’: ‘26 $6 Depuw Regisirar 10 G‘ec‘mie we case cf ihe zaei§iécner m merii‘s. H is we“ sewed mincmie of iaw “ihai ence ’{ne om‘er has been $3359 £2. {he auihority passing ihe om‘er bemmes furwéaas‘ afficio. “."hereafier the auihoriiy is mi camgeieni t0 reconsider ihe mate: Wé‘ihcut there being any appgicaéien fer review or revisien, as the case may ’ee. The peiiiieney has n01 cheeen i0 eha§ieege ihe erder feeseeii by ihe euéherey m ih§s eei§i§ara. :3. in v§ew sf feregeéng and {er {he reasms meniiened hereiaea’eeve, Ems wr§i ae’iwers 5s deveid ef mar}? and ie eceerdmgw éiem§sse¢ em ardef aséc casis. Sd/— Satish K. Agriihotri 5 Judge 1:. 1 h ' ' PE? ‘i‘IONER §;am1anand $héh Versus gESPGNDENTS The $ia€e 0f Chhatiisgam & Oiher‘s