t^'1 ^T^ THE HOM'BLE HIGH COUET OE CHHATHSGA&H AT BILASPURfC.G.) WRFTPETETIQN_(S1NQ. ij3W QF 2Q1Q PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS ^^A , \^fe&9/ ^spy •^ .•L-\-<" .. '. <^1:'' A'-' .<>>.'' ..•fv ..-''.'•1-" ^€^' <y:0' ^•••'~ .^^.^^- —.^»- ^ °^s;.._. \:..,x ts!!SaiS^-e!!!Ki 'Sf l ry:W^ ss | g^,^^^ ^" , .gyysya^, as; '}; ?°A i- l;.s?f;^'a fi»,.'">». ^tf^'^p ^^ ^^.•f:<;v""'' Nath Tiwari Son of Late lesh Tiwart, aged about Kotwali Ambikapur, District ^-' 1. State of Chhattisg the Secretary, Home, D.K.S. CC.G.}. i, through: partment af 2, r- The Diractor Generai of Police, Police Headquarter, Elaipur 3." Tl Dlstrict Surguja (C.G.). 4. The Superintendent of PoSice, Ambikapur, Disfcrict Surguja (C.G.). ^ 5. Fulsai Shyam, Inspertor of Poiice, Poiice Line, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRLT PEJITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION II! ^\ i-1 ..,.,; y t'<k^--. '^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4399 OF 2010 PETITIONER Sanjay Nath Tiwari RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition underArticles 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 6th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 7-10-2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Sarguja Range and the order dated 14-5-2010 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the Inspector General of Police (Admn.). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has raised several disputes in his memo of appeal dated 24-2-2010 (Annexure - P/4). The appellate authority, which under the provisions of law should be the Director General of Police, without applying his rriind, has passed the order without assigning any reason. According to the learned counsel, the allegation of riding motorcycle during the selection process is baseless. 4. On perusal of the order dated 14-5-2010, it appears that the appellate authority has not applied its mind, as it is a trite law that npn-assigning the reason indicates non-application of mind. (See: Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers and 1 (2010)43cc785 Gowri Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others). In view of foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the order dated 14-5-2010 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority i.e. the Director General of Police to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh as aforestated. The Director General of Police is, accordingly, directed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and pass the order after recording reasons by taking a particular view in the matter, as expeditiously as pOssible. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. _-——- Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotn Judge