‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR 1’ Wm't Petition (T) No. 4389 of 2009 l Petitiéner Pmetpal Singh Bhatia, S/ o Shri Harbansh Singh Bhatia, aged aboilt 50 yéars, R]é Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C. G.) ‘ g Versus Respéndents 1. State of Chhattisgrh, Through : Secrepaly 3' 1 Transport Departm€nt, D.K,S. Bhawan, Ra1pur (C.G.) Transport Commissioner, New Bus Stand Campus, Pandry, Réipur (C.G.) 3. Tho Regional Transport Onicer, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (exit) I Incharge Flying Sqfuad Transport, Depaxtment, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2. i i m 1 i ‘1 4. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J) Shri B. ‘rK. Chakrabarty, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' Amn Sac, Govt. Advocate‘for the respondents. o R D E R (orai) (Passed on this 17‘11 day of August, 2003) Heani. The petitioner has nled this petition impugning the letter date 8.5.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) written by the Additional Trano Commissioner, Chattisgarh, Raipur’ to. the Regional Transp Otftcer, Ambikapur, which resulted into the passing of impugne order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexuie P/2), passed by the Incharg V Transport Flying Squad, Raigarh. The petitioner had challenged the legality and validity of the aov be 301 order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure P/ 2), earlier, in W.P.(C) No. 0 f 2009 (Pritipal Singh Bhatia Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & othe) o rs; which was disposed ofby order dated 17th July, 2009, as underz— ‘ “1. Ms I-Shalmila Singhai, learned counsel appearing for t - petitioner, Submits that the petitioner has received the order ded 7' . 18—5-2009 (Annexure —P/‘1) for a payment of Rs. 8,69,2SO/, s t outstanding dues towards annual taxes and other dues. ' submits that the petitioner does not know asto what are the tu d sprt ort d e; at he - a . She acal *u 1‘‘ d h b b t h ues, whlc are to e pald y he p tltloner and as such te pehtloner ought to have been g1ven t least a nonce before the Impugned order 1s passed 2 Havmg regard to the facts s1tuat10n of the case 1t appears that the 1mpugned order was passed Wlthou aifordmg an opportumty of heanng and no defmls have been glven the sald order 3 Be that as 1t may, on the request o‘ learned counsel appealing for the petltwner, the petltloner 1s granted hberty to make a representatlon before the concerned ‘uthonty Wlt‘mn a penod of one week If the representauon rs made w1thJn a perrod of one week the same shall be consrdered and decrded by the concerned authonty after aEordmg an opportum of hearmg to the petmoner, m accordance w1th law wrthm a furth penod of three weeks The order dated 18 5 2009 shall not glven‘ eEect to t111 the drsposal of the representation of the petrtloner The petitioner has tiledthis petition without disclosing the fact of hling of earlier writ petition i.e’. W.P.(C) No. 3001 $12009, wherein the impugned order dated 18.5.2009 was challenged. This appears to be a clear case of suppressio veri’ and .Suggestio falsi, which; amounts to misuse ofjudicial process. t While concealing the facts, the petitioner wants to obtain some: order from this Court. It is very unfortunate that even the learnedf Advocate who appeared in this matter has not disclosed the fact of iling the petition earlier and disposal of the same, till it is pointed: f out by Shri Arun ’Sao, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents. The conduct of the petitioner amounts to misuse of Without expressing any opinion and Without gomg 1n to details of the conduct of the petitioner, which speaks volumes about 1t this writ petition 1s dismissed With cost quantified to be Rs. 10,000]— ' (Rupees Ten Thousand), payable w1th1n a period of two weeks. \ ‘ judicial processby concealing facts. aatlsh K Agmho udg l é trl i g , ‘: Je