^^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 90 of2009 PETITIONER Baisaldiu son of Shri Butu, aged about 55 years, resident of village Kendai, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department of Irrigation^ D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Managing Director^ S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Korba (C.G.) 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 100 of2009 PETITIONER Vishram Singh son of Shri Bajulal, aged about 30 years, resident of village Barbhantha, Tahsll Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department of Irrigation, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur (C.G.) 2. Chief Managing Director^ S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Korba (C.G.) 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tahsil Katghora., District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri R.KJaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. l,3and4. Heard. QRDERJQRAL) (Passed on 23rd day of July, 2009) The aforementioned two writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, asto whether, one member ofthe family ofthe displaced family, on construction ofMinimata Bango Dam, is entitled to employment as per their qualifications in Sindurgarh Coalfields Limited, Sindurgarh, District Korba, therefore both the Writ Petitions (C) No. 90 of 2009 and W.P.(C) No. 100 of 2009 are being disposed ofby this common order. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that the instant cases are squarely covered by the order dated 14 July, 2009, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1000/2008 (Nahkul Singh v. State of ^\ 1 ^/. the writ petitions were dismissed observing that a writ of mandamus can be issued to a statutory authority to compel it to perform its statutory obligation. It cannot be issued to compel him to pass an order in violation of a statutory provision. (See Hope Textiles Ltd. and another v. Union oflndia and others , Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) and others v. State of Maharashtra and others , W.B. Housing Board and others Vs. Brijendra Prasad Gupta and others^, Federation ofRailway Officers Association and others v. Union of India , All India ITDC Workers' Union and others Vs. ITDCandothers5, ). This Court dismissed writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No. 1000/2008 (Nahkul Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and 180 other connected writ petitions, observing as under: "23. The petitioners have acquiesced and waived their rights, if any, and there is no explanation for such an inordinate delay of 18 years. On this count alone, these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 24. Having applied the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case wherein there is no statute, notifications, executive instructions or the policy which provides for grant of employment to one member of the displaced person ofMinamata Bango Project^ no writ can be issued directing the respondent/State or the respondent/S.E.C.L to grant the reliefas prayed for by the petitioners.59 Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the instant petitions may be disposed ofinthe same terms. In view ofthe decision ofthis Court in Nahkul Singh (supra), both the writ petitions are dismissed. No order asto costs. ——-- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit ' 1995Supp(3)SCC199 2 (1996) 9 SCC 633 3 (1997) 6 SCC 207 4 (2003) 4 SCC 289 5 (2006) 10 SCC 66