^ ^ }£rvL- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(C) NO. o?3r-r/2Qio PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .0^-"^ .^" ^^~ ; ^..-:c^%.'' ..-•r^'" ^- ,-f -&.<•- <>••' F\.ilchand Sahu, S/o Late Krifa-am Sahu, aged about 49 years, R/o Village - CharKhapara, Bakaruma, Tahsil Dharamjaygarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary \^'->'ff/-:''' ...•• Panchayat Department, D.K.S. ,<»•••' Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat/Janpad Panchayat, Dharmjaygarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Chairman, Janpad Panchayat, Dharamjaygarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bakaruma, Tahsil Dharamjaygarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER ^^BRBS@ 3-- ,5-6' .^ ,ssy HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ^!;1 PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (0 N0.2355 OF 2010 Fulchand Sahu RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ravish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 22nd day of June,2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on auction the petitioner has been assigned the.responsibility of collection of tax, in cattle market. In view of the letter dated 24-4-2010 (Annexure P/1), written by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dharamjaigarh, to the Deputy Director, Department of Panchayat & Social Welfare, Raigarh, it appears that the Chief Executive Officer has recommended for cancellation of establishment of cattle market. The petitioner would be directly effected, if the order of cancellation of cattle market is passed. 2. There is no dispute that till date no order has been passed either by the Gram Panchayat or by any other authority canceling the establishment of cattle market, which according to the petitioner, he has been assigned the task of collection of tax. This petition does not disclose any cause of action, as the petitioner apprehends that if the recommendation is accepted, the petitioner would suffer prejudice. If some order is passed, then only the petitioner may be affected, not at this stage where there are several communications Gowri 2 between one officer to other officer, but no actual order has been passed canceling the establishment of cattle market thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner. Thus, this petition is premature. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed as not maintainable for want of cause of action. __.——-—~-- Sd/- , „; Mbotn Satisl Judge sr 681 li:i;r;i@S3B