c^^v^q^ @ J- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (C) No. 5^?} /2010 Petitioner - Versus Respondents - .^-ss^-.. '^'^yi^ ^\..^ ^ <&p''^ ^s' A<S"" fr-' ^"- ^ '..^^ .-•"^^.•'•^ ':'^' ^•-" Arun Luthra, s/o Late Shriram Luthra, aged about 52 years, r/o Pandri Tarai, Jeewan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur, Distt-Raipur[C.G.] ^ 1. Municipal Corpbration, Raipur Through its Commissioner, Raipur, Distt- Raipur [C.G.] ^i. Raipur DevelopmentAuthority, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, Distt-Raipur[C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w Bfii .i.^:i[' !l!!:;li •I, -0! vw lli'i'i: ^ irii« III •.1: HIGHCOUK^0FCaHBAITIS(3ARHATBItASF^ WRTT PETEIIONCCINa 5738 of2010 PETmQNER ArunLutfara. .RESPONDENES :l?yERSUS:::^: . ::'; .,':::: :::..':• l':'::': Municipal a Cca-poration, ; Raipur & :':^'Sfe: ;.:;.©ther&^;^''.:;':.:?..^ WRTrPETffiG^^13K@@ttfiaSfi 22^W'^ ^!:Ss[ia^;"::''s',:l-:;-'::.::::r ^^i'Hon'ISI^SliiiiiSaiisyil.^emBo^ PreseHt: ShRp.K.Bh^ari.Ail^cat®^ SUnI'ankaj Ag-awal, Adw>catefOT^^te^ •oia)i^.:(<aRAi^:':;:<;..:.;::::.'.^v^ '%: /-; ^;:(Passed'Qn;04n^'day^October,'201:q);^..;' :'. .:: , •:.. 1. I^amed counsel^ a^ uMpugwdiidtieesKaated 2^9.201®(A^ (Amiexi^ P/2) tiave^eeu^ssued-^wittu^ exaaa^^ niamtamed|bythe resp . ,ilottUi»ler,prQper;provisk>ns'c>flaw,,..Y:,'.:-'. ' •:-1 :^ : '•'^'':.:'^-'1.''! 2. Tlig[pettti0ner,w^ ha^a[!|M^aeBedfhisG(ftirt. wa&tlis firstt^tice^^^\^^ 7.8^10, noi-eplywasffiled.P^S^ seccmd IriBticelidiated 25.09.20ro wasisSuedait^abo 4S;^^and'the-pe^ respbndingi to tfie said notice,.Bas ? rusKed fia mterference ofthts/Gourt.^ as such is dismissed. 3.. Be'ffiat as.it-ma^^tiie;petttion^:m^^s&/all.1l«;.^ auf;1ia|Biesaufllofi|ies^'fhiFe|is;ai]^^efeet|^ SB asi. .1^1' •;!^;i ,lisaii •ws ^^ ;;tfus:;;<5auit-!se6Kij|g; ;T^^&^?i& ''•' t- Sia.ndjgg»,||g|g|g i;f ;:infiftregai^|^^;|loisnrli|Ei||^|||iU3^^ %llil.l.gi^g|yf "tffillliiiSIiilBIM --—-saifiBtBBa .,..-? ••^l^'^^. i!,:."!MBa^':r- 'c'''' 't. 4. Law in this reganl is well settted by a series of decisions that ordmMTly na writ lies against a diarge sheet or show cause notice, as th& show cause riotieexw chargesheetdoes nbtgiverisetoaiiy cause of action, and it also does not amount t6 an adverse order wtiich afEectsfhe rights ofanypartyunlessthesamehaslieeriissuedbya person luvmg rio junsdicti(m to do^ s^^^ Bihar StateS(MsingSoarSw.San^shKumarSm^, SpeeictiBirectw v.Mohd. OtilamGhous^Ulagaf^a^ State cfU.P.v.BmhmDattShwMa^a^Umcn^afI^ KimisettyScttyanarayan^.} ; ; . j,, . 'i' ;! 5. Since no action has been tatei by tiie respondent au&pi'itiBS till 'date, the^peltticiher is at liberty^to respond to the afor^said notiws widiuin a period oflQdays, aad taitti^tmie,^ respo^ take any coercive action. After cbnsiderihg the respcunse of tfae petitioner, needful may be dione in aceordance wfth law. 6. Applying ttie well settled .prmciples oflaw to the facts Qfthe'c^e .gnd fbr the reaspns mentionediherem^tioye, the writ petition fejl&and is hereby dismissed, witfaliberty, as aforestated. 7. No orderastocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge