....- ^^^- ^..^p?n:> ''' .•-. '^' .^'° ^ingteBench ..^1" ^ty'' C^f^^ » / IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT KETITION (C) N0. PF 2008 PETITIONBR Jan Kalyan Khadi Gramodyo^ Ashram, Chhuri, District Korba (CG), through its Secretary Jivrakhan Lal Dewangan, S/o Shri D.R. Dewangan, aged about 52 years, R/o Chhuri, Tahsil Kathghora, District Korba (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS ,./'f^' 1. Khadi & Village Industries Commission, li-Ia Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400 056, through its Chairman. 2. Financial Advisor, Khadi & Village Industries Comraission, Irla Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400 056. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Khadi & Villa.ge Industries Commission, Ma Road, Vile Parie (West), Mumbai - 400 056. 4. Director, Dirftctorate of Audit, Khadi &, Village Industries Coramission, Irla Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400 056. 5. Director, State Office, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Near Hotel Guru Lane, Govind Nagar, Raipur (CG). 6. Shri P. Nallamuthu, Assistant Director, Khadi & Village Industries Coramission, Madurai (Tamil Nadu). ( r WRIT PETITIQN UND^R ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA *a;»ta—.'-^«><<*'1 ^:'.,"ta«inii ^^^r w\^ ;•-<;,';" 1!GH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETIT! VVRIT PETITION (0 N0. 5625 OF 2008 Jan Kaiyan Khadi Gramodyog A lustnes iUSrf' 'WW iafi Commission & Others (Writ Petition undsr Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. 2^ ?pi ORDER (ORAU issed cn this 26th day of Juiy, 2010) 3y this petition, the petitioner irnpugns the communication dated 21/08/2009 (Annexure P/1) of the Directorate of Audit to the Director, State Ofrice. Khadi & Village industries Commission recommending certain actions against the Chairman (CCC), Director (KC) and Director (CCC). The aforesaid ietter is neither endorsed to the petitioner nor addressed to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner t'nat any order has been passed or any action has been taken on the basis of impuflned communication dated 21/08/2009. It is we!l settied principles of !aw that no punitive action, which visits v/ith civil (evil) consequences, can be taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the person to put foro/ard his case. Shri Psndey, iearned counsel appearing for the respondents in fairness, submits that no action has been taken on the basis of impugned communication. Further, no punitive or otherwise action v/ould be taken aaalnst the petitioner without affordinc an oppprtunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the relief sought for in this case cannot be granted to the petitioner, at this stage. The petition, being premature, is accordlngly, dismissed. No order asto costs. ! Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge