~!'s>, tS\.^ BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. !L Appeal No.107 of ENTS 1) 2) 3) 5) 6) 7} 9) Ramchand Yadav S/o Late Shri Rampher Yadav, aged about 53 years, r/o Dharmji Nagdone Colony, Yyapar Vlhar Bilaspur, Tehsii & District Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe & OBC Welfare department D.K.S. Buiiding Raipur, Dlstrict Raipur (C.G.) Collector, District Biiaspur (C.G.) Collector (Schedute Tri! Biiaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) Tahsildar Bilaspur, Tehsil & Disfrict Bilaspur (C.G.) Superintendent of Police Bitaspur, District Biiaspur (C.G.) Station House Officer, Anusuchit Jati telyan Poiice Station Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri Vikashsil, Then Collector, Presently posted as Secretary, Department of Health services, D.K.S. Building Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, then Sub Divisionai Magistrate Bilaspur, presently posted as Sub Dh/isional Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) /" ., ii'l % ^ "< 11) 12) 13) 5) Shri Rajendra Gupta, then Tahsildar Bilaspur, presently posted as Tahsildar Korba, District Korba (C.G.) Shri P.C. Kori, then Naib Tahsiidar Bilaspur, presently posted as Additional Tahsildar Ganiyari, Tehsii Ganlyarl, District Bilaspur (C.G.) G.R. Banjare, Retd. Addl. S.P., then •<•:. liiVtiyiiycltlull OfHcer, presently R/o Kali Mandir Road Pandri, Raipur, Tehsi! & District Shri B.S. Banafar, Sub Inspector, Anusuchit jati Kalyan Police Station, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri Patras Tirkey Retired Deputy Collector, R/o M.1.G. 39, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri Satya Ranjan Jogl, S.o Late Shri K.P. Jogi, aged about 70 years, r/o near Indu Chowk, Jarhabhata Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) CHHATTiSGARH HiGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION Shri Shailendra Soni, counsel fortheappellant. Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/ respondents No.1 to 7. J >nd The following judgment of the Court was passed by Learned counse! for the parties are heard on admission. T1!Tw"""f'mrr''"r .. \ A' i' %•- »., ••—, • / 2). Appellant Ramchand Yadav has filed thls writ appeal against the impugned order dated 03.03.2009 passed in W.P.(Cr.)No.1236/2009. 3) The appellant / petitioner had filed the writ petition for the following reiiefs: " 1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents authority to produce the entire records leading to issuance of the present writ petition, for its perusal. 2. That this Hon'bie Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the State Government to take suitable action criminal as well as departmental proceedings against the respondent authorities and punished accordingly. 3. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities for payment of compensation Rs. 25,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner. 4. That any other alternative writ or writ, order or orders direction or directlons, thought expedient and just may aiso please be issued." 4) Learned Single Judge finding that the writ petition involves disputed questions of facts dismissed the writ petition in the followina terms: "After going through the averments in the petition, this Court is of the opinion that highly disputed questions of facts are involved for adjudication of this petition, which require recording of detailed evidence of the parties. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appropriate criminal complaint before the competent Court for initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents, as well as of filing a suit for damages •ii}3fe,-.A for his malicious prosecution. The disputed questions of facts involved in this petition cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed." • 5) .Shri Shailendra Soni, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appeliant's writ petition on the ground that the writ petition involves highly disputed questions of facts though whatever the petitioner pleaded in the writ petition was apparent from the documents fited aiong with the writ petition. 6). The petitioner in the writ petition was seeking action against respondents No.2 to 7, who are Government Officials on the allegation that they acted in connivance with respondent No.15 Shri Satya Ranjan Jogi in harassing the petitioner. For ascertaining the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents, the petitioner would certainly be required to lead evidence in support ofthose allegations which in turn would also require leading of evidence bythe respondents in rebuttal. Such a course obviously is not permissible in writ proceedings under Articte 226 of the Constltution of India. That apart, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing criminal complaint before the competent Court or a Civjl Suit for damages before the competent Civil Court. 7). For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant's writ petition. ^-- '^^•••' % K / 8). The writ appeai, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and hereby dismissed summarily. fl Sd/- ChiefJustice ~£S M Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge L. subbu 1