C .f- ^ \Qf Ly IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT ILASPJLR. WRITAPPEAL NO.S6'?> OF 20U (Arisine out of W.P (Cl No. 4788/2011) APPELLANT Sunil Lak6.SL s/o Shri Jai Masih >^ Lakda, aged about 48 years, ^ it> _^ r'/'i\n'-' / My ^/W A' /<? ^ ^/.^' A' ^/' /y' Occupation Advocate, practicing iri the District & Sessions Court Ambikapur, Chamber No. 7, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. (Petitioner) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of C.G. through the Secretary Tribal Development Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. (Respondent no. 1) 2. Chhattisgrgh Antavasayee Sahkari Vikas Nigam Ltd. A Government of C.G. undertaldng through its Managing Director, B-9, Sector 5, Devendra Nagar Raipur C.G. (Respondent no. 2) , 3. The District and Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. (Respondent no. 3) 4. The Collector Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja C.G. 5. The Chief Executive Officer, District ^ Antavasayee Sahkari Vikas Nigam Q^^ Ltd. Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. (Respondents) THE MENO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHJ^ACT^2006 iiiiL-aeenexed bv the order _passed on HIGH COURT OF CHHATNSGARH^ BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I. M. QUDDUSI Ss HON'BLE Q. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ WritApsealBo. 508 of 2011 APPELLANT: RBSPONDBNTS: SimilLakda Vs. State of Chliattisgarh and others WRIT APPEAL UNDBR SBCTIOBr 2(11 OF CHHAmSOARH HIGH COURT ,'APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHi ACT. 200S Present: Dr. Rajesh Pandey, couasel for the appeKaat. Mr. Viaay Harit Depuly Advdocate General for the State. ORAL OKDER (22.11.2011) Petl.M.eUDDUSLJ^ 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the leamed Single Judge in W.P.(C). No. 4788/2011 (Simil Lakda Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and othersj. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the writ appeBant who is a practiciag advocate was allotted Cbamber No.7 in fhe campus of District and Sessions Court, Ambikapur, by respondent no.4 vide order dated 02.08.2010 for carrying out his professional works, but on fhe basis of some complaint fhat he has coiistructed a shed in firont of his chamber aad has also instaUed the Photocopier (Zerox Macltme) for the purpose of commercial activities in fhe said cliamber, respondent uo,5 has passed the impugned order dated 11.8.2011 directmg the appeUant to stop cominercial activities being carried out by him ia Chainber No.7 aUotted to him and also to remove tfae shed built at bis chamber. Agamst fhe said order, the petitioner has filed fbs writ petition. 1 3. Learaed counsel for the appeUant submits fhat the Photocopier was installed for fhe purpose of his professional activities and fhe shed was buflt only to protect fi-oin rauiy season wifh the oral permission ofrespondent no.4. 4. 6. Since a stateinent was made before leara.ed single Jiidge fhat the temporary shed, which was buflt to protect from raiay season, was no more required, fhe sanie would be removed wifhin 7 days by fhe petitioner aad fhat the photocopier (Zerox Machiae) iastaUed as afeged by fhe respondents would also be renioved within the said period, leamed Siagle Judge disposed of the writ petition with au observation that nofhing survives isa. fhe writ petition. But a direction was given that Chauiper No.7 atlotted to fhe appeUaiit shaU. continue in. his possessiou and the appellant shaU not coxniuit any breach of conditions of the aUotment aad if it is found on verification that any breach of conditious is fhere, a Uberty has been given to the authorities to take appropriate action ia accordaace with law. Leamed counsel for the appeUant before us submits fhat this appeal has been filed only with an iatention that action. would not be necessaiy agauist fh.e appeUaat on fhe basis of false aad fidvolous aUegations. On perusal ofthe order dated 10.10.2011 we have found fhat fhe leamed single Judge has only given Uberty to fhe aufhorities to take appropriate actiou iu case it is found on verification fhat fhere is breach ofconditions ofaUotment offhe chamber. Therefore, there is no question of takiag any action merety on fhe basis ofa coxuplamt. Hence, no case is made out to iaterfere iu the impugned order passed by the leamed siagle dudge. The writ appeal, therefore, fails aad is dismissed. Sdf- I.M.Quddusi judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao