13 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma Writ Appeal No.389 of 2011 Ramesh Tiwari, s/o Late Manharan Lal Tiwari‘, aged about 57 years, President, Amrapali Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, B/23, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Ashok Surana, S/o Chandanmal Surana, aged about 52 years, Vice President, Amrapali Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, B/23, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Smt. Rajni Baidya, W/o V.R. Baidya, aged about 45 years, Director, Amrapali Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, B/23, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur(CG) Mukesh Mandhani, S/o Sundar Das Mandhani, aged about 43 years, Director, Amrapali Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, B/23, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Hari Prasad Sidar, S/o P.R.Sidar, aged about 58 years, Director, Amrapali Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, B/23,. Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Chandrika Prasad Dewangan, S/o Tikam Ram Dewangan, aged about 48 years, Director, Amrapali Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, B/23, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil & DiStrict Raipur (CG) Vikas Baidya, S/o Jethumal Baidya, aged about 37 years, Director, Amrapali, Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, B/23, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Appelants l zg 2 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Cooperative, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur (CG)‘through its Secretary Secretary, Department of Cooperative, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Bhavin Jain, Amrapaii Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur,'Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Smt. Sudha Shukla', W/o Dr. Lalji Shukla, aged about 68 years, Director, Amrapaii Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, B/23, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Ram Bharos Dewangan, S/o Kumar Dewangan, aged about 57 years, Director, Amrapaii Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, B/23, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Hanuman Prasad Kedia, S/o Keshav Devji Kedia, aged about 76 years, Director, Amrapaii Grih Nirman Sanstha Simit, B/23, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Respondents Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, counsei for the appeilants. Shri U.N.S.Deo, Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 and 3. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, counsel for respondent No.4. my“; ORAL ORDER (Passed on 315‘ October, 201 1) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.: Heard on admission. Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisqarh Hioh Court - (Appeal to Division Bench) Act 2% 3 2. The appellants/petitioners have filed this appeal against the order dated 19-7-2011 passed in Writ Petition (C.) No.2581/2009 by the writ Court. 3. By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appeilants/petitioners has been dismissed by the writ Court. 4. On a complaint made by respondent No.4, Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog registered Case No.21/2006 against the petitioners. After due enquiry, the Lok Ayog passed order dated 17—3-2009 (Annexure P-1 in the writ petition) and made certain recommendations under Section 11 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Adhiniyam, 2002 a (henceforth ‘the Act, 2002’). The appellants/petitioners challenged validity of the order dated 17-3-2009 passed by the Lok Ayog making recommendations under Section 11 of the Act, 2002. The writ Court held that the impugned order dated 17—3-2009 was a recommendation of the Lok Ayog to the concerned authority to take disciplinary action against the appellants/petitioners, which was in accordance with the provisions of Section"‘1‘1 of the Act, 2002. The writ Court, therefore, declined to entertain the writ petition against the impugned order passed by the Lok Ayog. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners at length. 6. The contents of‘the order dated 17—3-2009, particularly paragraph 16,thereof, would show that the Lok Ayog has simply made a recommendation to the concerned authority under Section . 11 of the Act, 2002. Since the order passed by the Lok Ayog was of l 4 recommendatory nature, the writ Court was right in not entenaining the writ petition challenging validity of the said order simplicitor. 7. We do not-find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the writ Court, The writ appeai is, therefore, liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sdf— \y iSunilKumarSinha f Sd/w \i Judge ~ Radhe Shyam Sharma i Judge