(y 5k- »lsii IN^THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAItH AT BILASPUR W.P. 36$^ /2003 PETITIONER: - Gireeja Prasad Mishra, s/oLate-——L^-^-'-f—rY1-^7^ Aged about 60 years/o Rohinipuram, near Indian gas agency, Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT:- 1. Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing federation Through its Managing Director,880,Civil lines , Raipur(C.G.) ..v.^y ^\^-,..^ 2. Secrateiy, Chhattisgarh state Cooperative Marketing federation ltd.,880,Civil lmes,Raipur(C.G.) 3. ChiefAccounts ofGcer cum Assittant fiaancial Cont- -roler, Chhattisgarh state Cooperative Marketing federation ltd.,880,Civil lines,Raipur(C.G.) ,'^'.^" ^' WMT PETITION U/A 226 OF THR CONSTmjTION OF FNDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WMTS INTHE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND ANY OTHER DIRECTIpN:- ^ :1 XI-HC-22 sn^r'^i 1?TO;31l|?I $ht<ffi iS.ait -TS^-affqi^pr, -g^WTS, fmra^ t)l«dl**11* .^.^^^4. ^^ •m. l^^r' Sit^KWWHfW ^pifepNwraf-S feA ite?n iT aifiOT OT^ Haird Shri Satidi Supta, coun|5e1 for Ihe pe'titioner. The petitioner has preforred [this «»ritpetition umfer Articfe 226 of •the Conslitution of Indin, que^tionmg show cause notices ekfted 124.01.2002; 06.02.2002/15.02.2042 and 23.07.2002/02.0e.2002 |(AnnexureP-5). The nwan grievance of -the petjtibner is that by Ihesenotices the itftioner has been asked to sh^w cauae and asted to deposit s.2,06,339.71 wi+h rwpondent Nei^l. Tlie pstMoner's cose 'is -rtiat ling that loss enquiry was in^titutBd and •ttie cnquiry officers ^bsolwd the petitioner from Ihe ^wrges of loss aistained by Kw andents and even therwrfter, w^thou-^ folltnwing the principtes of V. iturcjj justice, -the petrtioner hdri be^i sened wilh rfiow cauae noticea. counsel for -the petitior»r[submits that the petitionw has ^neady fited reply to these notioe^, but the respondents are not idin9 his oase. As faar as Ihe filing of tiie wrif petition cgamst the show couse n^tice isconcemed, no pefition tes e4*anst th®sh°«1'couse notice and }e petition is filed on Ihe ground ifiat rwtia is malafide. Leamed ^unsel for -the petitioner sdbmits ^wt- the petittoner has alreacly imitted reply and fte respon^ents are not deckRng the ^ XJ-HC-22 TSg "qWlfl^, »al'ti<!6, i««!11-M3< <LO: '>nwiT»flWs war^ aiferqii h-u'b aiitg ?ti^i<t) flig!) Soma ?^ /''<;: !' r-elaresentation/reply of the petitioner ndtices. N. ^I^ S'Klllng? •Slfeci - '2- thi Howhg heard 1+is leamed coun^ r^gord to the facts end CH-cumstoncesj •t+^af 1<ie re^)ondents diould decide di^ovi cause notkas submitted by •thej r^covery from the petitioner and pas^ se^ne to Ifte petitioner. Therefore, fifst Ihey should decide the p^titioner wi'thin a period of 30 days aitount from him, in accordance wri1+i la»i4 Wi-th •the above observations •ttie repriesentjrtio filed m reply to the diow ceaise ^t for •ttie petitioner and hawig of the case, I am of the opinion representalwn tnd rwpfy to the petitioner before affecting any fe an order and communicate the respondents are directed that (rtion ond reply submitted by •th® todoy before recovering ony flwm di^pose^of. In view of •rtiis order. Mj(W.)P.N<».3299/2003 flind I.A. .11323/2003 also slund disposed of. PorMes are entitled for c»rtif»d|»pyof ^iis order. ^il^^^*<l*1<lf ^ fe^ ^-^K ^? •oPd'1 aifer o^d ^ipections -Ihe petition stimds L.C. Bhadoo Judge -£k. ITTO <;!«<!