1 -S^'1 S' ?' n^w^.fr iH-1.' , i3 rl.,& Ki K »i!!'i-r^ C_^~\^» 1-S-s IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR, W.P.(S) No. '7 5'H L'{ /2010 PETITIONER: Chandrashekhar Singh Thakur Aged about 48 years S/o Shri Janardan Singh Thakur R/0 Village & Post Bandhabajar District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS ^ifes^s^ssi^ RESPONDENTS: ^-^^A^T-**^ o.^-^ ).F1' 'y^-c ^)^:^ ,^s ^ ^>..-^..^\> ^" •V?- '-^!.')l"^iNfr ^X ^y 'v \'\ /\A1 ^ -- ^y' .^ '"'^.^ State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development Department Manfa-alaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Commissioner/Director Tribal Welfare Department Government of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Collector District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 4. ' Assistant Commissioner Department of Tribal Development Rajnandgaon (Chhatdsgarh) PETITION^ UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE^ QF^ APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- -IIBteAI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.7544 OF 2Q10 ChandrashekharSingh Thakur Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Gowri (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Jitedra Pali, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (OF?AU (Passed on this 17th dayofMar.ch, 2011) 1. Heard tearned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned . counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law involved in the instant petition is asto whether show cause notice after decision has been taken is sustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that against the impugned show cause notice dated 29-11-2010 (Annexure - P/1) other similarly situated persons have come to this Court. This Court in Rajesh Kumar Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters after having considered the issue at length held as under: "11. In the case on hand, there 's no statutory provision to provide post-decisional hearing, which necessitates review of the order in full. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case where admittedly decision to quash the earlier order of promotion was taken before issue of show cause notice. Thus, show cause notice is vitiated." Thereafter, ttie notice dated 29-11-2010 was consequently quashed. Learned counsel prays that similar order may be passed in this case also. 3. Shri Ajit Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, concurs with the submission made by the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner. 4. In view of foregoing, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms of the order passed in Rajesh Kumar Shukla (supra) and the impugned notice dated 29-11-2010 is quashed. No order asto costs. Sd/- .._^.i ^sb^^"teowi ^ Judge ' WP (S) No.7658 of 2010 (decided on 25-1-2011) .lllk-