S'lifegfi' "Ci)^f\':»'^i IN^THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.\ ,c^ .1 J^^- ^JL1 ^ 2. Ravindra Kumar Singh, S/o- Shri Shiv Ram Gupta, Aged about 30 years, R/o- Chhindkalo, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil- Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Abhay Singh, S/o- Shri Dhrupad Singh, Aged about 23 years, R/o- Village-Chhindakalo, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil-Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisj ^y. yy..-"' .^>< '^Sv/s^ l^ oy/y „.-•••.^\/_^ J''' c^'"i O..? ./^^ V •y '.\" ^ /'" State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, istt. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat- Surguja, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Sitapur, t. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ^:^':M ^^^i HiGH COURT GF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR Sinale Beneh; Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J, WRiT PETiTION (S) N0.2794/'2G1^ PETiTiONERS RESPONDENTS Kavinara i^urnar Singn ana anoiner versus State ofChhattisuarh and others ^nfa^s~~ ?t?"—;•");/% a a s E-ssT.e—s—»ss-s'yBif^.e if" i?w*u~i ^<ti~' •ys.ip—jf^^'^fc.s.^'s-s—ts~'e<.^Ks -".,?- s&i^t.E.K WKi E r'fa i i i iw?^ yriflJc.K AK E iwLfc ^AO Ur I ric UUfiiS i ii U E iUFii yir iNUEA S^T'iCt£?.e^fc'a'S"1 „ r'ic^^iii. ~ Shri Jitendra Shrlvastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vinod Tekarn, Panei Lavyyer for the State. ORAL OROeR (Passed on 21s* June, 2010) neara learnea counsei ror me paroes. 1. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that by press reiease (Annexure—P/1)the petitioners were asked to file affidavit acknovnedging that ths potitloners havo fiied certain forged docurnents (fabrlcated docuiTients), else it vvas threatened that First iniormation Report would be iodged against merri. 2. The issue carne into consideration berore this Court in Baijnath Prasad wupia_v. oiaie or_i/nnaiu5Ham a oiners ana oiner connecieQ tnauers. 3. This Cuurt afier consiuerina aii tha aspects of the matter, quashed tne press reiease reserving ii&erry to ine responuent autnoriues tnereiri to ao if'ie neeuTui,-^n accoruance witn iaw, arter aiToruing proper oppoitunify' OT neanng 10 -the—peutionerstherein. Leamed counsel for the petitiuner subrnits ihat thls petitlon rnay aiso be aiiowed on the sarne terrns. iy;::- 4. Shri Tekam, iearned counsei appearing for the State/respondents does not uispute that the issue involved is squareiy covered by the decision of this Court rendsred in Baijnath Prasad Gupta (supra). 5. i have exarnined tne facts of the present case as w'eli as the uecision of UliS <^0ur[ fenOet'ea En iisaijHSin r?rasau Uup?3 (SupFa; SHG 1 ^BT! O? ine consiuerea opinion inai ine Tacis are lueniicai. D. in 'view OT Toregoing, tne press reiease is quasneci, as tne sarne snaii r'loi be given effect to. Ho'vvever, iibesty Is reserved to the respondent authoritles to take appropriate steps after affording propsr opportuniry of hearing to the Dstitioners, if so advised. Neediess to sav' that it is for the parties io take appropnaie aciion inereaiier, «neea ue, in accoraance wiin law. ('. v'v'itn ine aroresaia ooservatiuns. tne 'wTit peuuon is aiiowed. NO orcsei' as IQ COSIS. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge