1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF'CHHATTISGARH - AT BILASPUR ‘ w.P.(227)NoQ5,33 [2010 (3.3.) PETITIONER’ : Gagat Ram Chandrakax, S/o Non-Applicant ‘ r ‘ Karliram Chandfakar,' aged ' Before the Nandgaon, Post Belsonda, P.S. - Mahasamund, .e Tahsil and District Mahasax'nund (C.G.)' Commissioner about 43 years, R/o Vlllage V VERSUS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @W RESPONDENTS/ ‘ :1. Smt. Rukhmani Bai, Wd/o A§E¥$gatr§es Late aShri_ Yogendra Tarak, Commissioner ’ v aged about 21 years 2. ,Radheshyam Tarak, s/o Shri Manrakheh L61 Tarak, aged L L about 47 yearrs.‘ _ V3. Smt. Bhagwantin Bai, ‘W/o Shri Radheshyam Tarak, aged I about 43 years. .4. DharieshWar S/o Shri Radheshyam ' Tarak, aged about r 15 ’Iyears, minor guardian through natural father Radheshyam, A11 eastes ’ 'Dhiniar, _ A11 residents of Nandgaon,‘ P.S. Mahasamund, Tahsil and District. Mahsamund (C.G.) IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W WRIT PETITION (227) No. 2533 of 2010 PETITIONER : Jagat Ram Chandrakar. Non-applicant before the Commissioner. VERSUS ' RESPONDENTS : Smt. Rukhmani Bai & Others. Applicaxxts before the Commissioner . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA' I SB: Hon’ble Shri $atish K. Agm'hotg' J. I’resent: Shri C.R.Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER gORAL! (Passed on 23‘ day of June, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure P/l) whereby the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur, While considering the petitioner-’3 application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has adj ourned the matter to consider the application on the basis of evidence as disputed facts were raised in the application. The petitioner, in fact has sought to impugi the decision of the Commissioner to consider his application on consideration of evidence etc. It is beyond oneis comprehension asto how a Writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when no order has been passed and the application of the petitioner is still at the stage of consideration before the Commissioner. The petition is premature at this stage. The attempt of the petitioner appears to be misuse and abuse ‘of judicial pl‘OCe SS . 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself, with cost quantiiied to be Rs. 500/- payable to the High Court Legal Aid Committee. 1 Sd/_ mi; SATISH K. AGN'JHOTRI Judge Amit