IN THE HON BL Wnt PETITIONER ,l i ! I ONID .RESPENTS: WRlTiPETITION FINDIA-FORTHEJSSUANCE OEDIRECTION S dR ORDER Single Be i E HIGH COUJRT OF‘CHHATTIS’GARH AT BILASPUR / Pollce Head Quarters Ratpur (C G ) Deputy Inspector General of Pohce § Telecommumcation Pohce Head f f f f f 1 I \ Qiparter Ralpur(CG) ‘ UNB A TICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIO V ” ‘ O S. I . v 1 ‘ i i N I I i @ Petmon (S) @934 2009 (S B) ' . wPram d KumarVerma S/o Late Shrl - ,,Ram Krlpal Verma aged about 52 " v‘<‘years ReSIdent of Pohce Lme [Wireless Colony, PenSIon Bada ~ ‘ iRaIpur(Chh‘att|sgarh) " ‘JRSUS ’ i*;*rX‘State-rofChhattisgarh,ThroUgh— ' r ‘ } ’ Secrefary, Home and Police Affairs D KS Bhawan Mantralay, Ralpur ‘ (Chhattusgarh) Director General of Police WW mm(g§i§a(m § { §WW”§WW awm mmw mmm ammm 1, SB Hon Mr Justice Pntmker Diwaker 26 08 2009 ‘ Shn Prakash Tlwari counsel orthe petitioner. ‘ ln‘thepresent: petition the p titioner has challenged the order dated 13 7 2009 passed by Direc r General of Police whereby the order regarding change of trade of he petitioner has been cancelled Office has painted out that the order Impugned has already been challenged by the petltloner m another wnt petltlon {(W.P.(S) 4418/2009} and in the said petiion the notices have also been ‘rssued to the respondents Vide ord r dated 17 8 2009 ln paragraph 6 of the petm n duly supported by an affrdavrt the petitioner has given a dectara ion that no petition of this nature has been filed- or pending beforet is Court. t This act of the petitioner s ws that knowing fully well about the earlier petition having been iled against the same impugned order, that fact has been supp ec! and this petition has again been filed. This act on the part of he petitioner can make him liable for the criminal misconduct but th Court is not inclined/to do that. The petition is dismissed w h cost of Rs. 2000 to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Aid Committee within one month from today. ’ t /’/i / r s i