1. / 2/ 4. Smt. Sandhya Dubey, W/o Shri Anil Kumar Aged about 38 years \ R/o In front of Gramm Bank Sltapur Dlstt. Surguja Chhattxsgarh f 6/ 7/ 8./ S/o Shri Karam Sai \ ’ Aged about 32 years N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C G W.P. (S) N0. VW /2010 QfL Sanj ay K—umaf Gupta, S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Aged about 30 years R/o Vlllage G1rohuld1h Block Sltapur Dxstt. Surguja Chhattlsgarh Pradeep Kumar Gupta, S/o— Shri Keshwar Prasad Gupta, Aged about 39 years, R/o- Purani Basti, Sitapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgar. Anklt Agrawal S/o Shn Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Aged about 23 years R/o- Raigarh Road, Sitapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Ngu{apil Singh, S/o Shrl Klshun Singh, Aged about 25 years R/o- V111age Nawabandh P O Kat]: Tehs11 Amblkapur Dlstt Surguja Chhattlsgarh Krishna Ram, S/o Shri Bhikham Ram Rajwade, Aged about 25 years R/o Vlllage Saraltlkra P O Karjl Tehs1l Amblkapur Dlstt, SurguJa Chhattlsgarh Parmeshwar Ram,, S/o- Shri Nan Ram, Aged about 25 years, R/o- Village-Kunj Nagar, Tehsil—Surajpur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh Krishna Ram Rajwade, R/o Vlllage Sarartlkra PO Karjr Teh311 Amblkapur Dlstt Surguja Chhattrsgarh . ... 5 ‘ $ h n 9./ Amar Nath Bisen, S/o- Late Shri Ram Deo Ram, Aged about 32 years, R/o- Village-Saraitikra, P.O.—Karji, Tehsil-Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh / 10 Rinkesh Kumar Gupta, S/o- Shri Radhey Lal Gupta, Aged about 28 years, R/o— Village & P.O.- Batouli, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, hrough-Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat- Surguja, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat— Sitapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226‘OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ’ T HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1974 OF 2010 PETITIONERS Sanjay Gupta & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition‘underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners, ' Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer forthe State. RESPONDENTS ORDER ORAL ' (Passed on this 28‘ day of April, 201 0) Heard learned counsel for theparties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by press release (Annexure -— P/1) the petitioners were asked to file affidavit acknowledging that the petitioners have'filed certain forged documents. (fabricated documents), else it was threatened that First Information Report would be lodged against them. The issue came into consideration before this Court in Baijnath Prasad Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh & Other31 and other connected matters. This Court after considering all the aspects ofthe matter, quashed the press release reserving liberty to the respondent authorities therein to do the needful, in accordance with law. after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may also be allowed in the same terms. Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents clearly submits that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Baijnath Prasad Gupta supra). ( \\ I WP (S) No.5592 of 2009 (decided on 6—4—2010) \. i have examined the facts of the present case as well as the decision of this Court rendered in Baijnath Prasad Gupta (supra) and I am of the considered opinion that the facts are identical. In view of foregoing, the press release is quashed, as the same shall not be given effect to. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, if so advised. Needless to say that it is for the parties to take appropriate action thereafter, if need be, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. / Lt ashok \w \