-.^.; ^ <^F }^ffj_ BEFORE THE HIGH COURTOF GHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR \N.P.lCr.)No. ^C/Ol /2009 Petitioner "^•^'^••^ ^^w Respondents Versus : / 1. /2. ,\;^ 3-- 4. <f \^ v\vv Satpujan Mishra, S/o Shri Shankar Mishra, Aged about 43 years, R/o Shiv Mandir, Dafai Korea, P.S. Chirmiri, District Korea (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) District Magistrate, District Korea (C.G.) ^^3. Superintendent of Police, District Korea (C.G.) P^dyuman TivApri, S/o\Shri D.P.Ti\vari, AssiStantSub In^pector, ^'y '^Police'*phowki Ko\ea, P.S. Chirmiri, v\!v"District^orea (C.G\ ^ t<^^ .'^^' <^° C»i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M< f) HIGH COURT OFCHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (Cr.) N0.6401/2009 Satpujan Mishra Versus StateofChhattisgarh & others Present: Shri ManeeshSharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 19th January, 2011) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally,though it was listed for admissioin. 2. Bywayof this instant petition, the petitioher has called in question order dated 25/07/09 passed in appeai by the State Government whereby the petitioner's appeal against drder dated 18/05/09 passed against the petitioner by the Coilector has been confirmed, dismissing hfs appeal. te 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitionerat therelevant time Was the Presidentof National Colliery Labour Congress and was also carrying on the business of Dairy Farm and transporting. It is the case of the petitioner that as he was continuousiy working for the welfare of the labourere and therefore, he became target of administration and other rival unions and on 29/3/04, the Superintendentof Police.Koriyaon certain false and fabricated report submitted before it, moved an application before the District Magistrate initiating extemment proceedings against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2/6/07. It is the case of the petitioner that the y /^ £f S. petitioner demanded copy of reievant documents but those documents were not supplied and the competent authority fixed the case for the reply on 13/4/09 and when the petitioner reached the Court of District Magistrate, he was informed that the Court is closed due to local holiday on account of Baisakhi festival and a new date would be communicated. In support of his contention, order of the Commissioner, Sarguja Divfl'sion (Annexure P/3) has been placed on reeord wherein 13/4/09 has been declared as local holiday. ^4. Case of the petitioner is that even though that was a declared hoiiday, and the petitipner wasinformed that the proceedings would not be taken up, the matter was taken up on 13/4/09 itself by the District Magistrate and in the absenceofthe petitioner, he was proceeded ex-parte, proceedings were ciosed for orders and on 18/5/09, orderwas passed againstthe petitioner, 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order of externment passed on 18/5/09 by the Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 5 of Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 raising several grounds as also specifically stating that 13/4/09 was deciared local Aolid&yyetthe order was passed on that very day, resulting in denial ofprinciples of natural justice. 6. Submission of iearned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority did not consider specific grounds which were raised by the petitioner in his appeal. He further submits that in the memo of appeal, specific averments Were made that 13/4/09 was a iocal holiday, yet the proceedings were drawn which resulted in petitioner being proceeded ex-parte. In addition, other grounds were raised but the order passed in appeal did not take into consideration •y~ssx!K', ^•--^tJSE^^ t )ila; "BfeK 1 ?•? ^y ,/ various grounds raised in the appeai and without considering specific grounds, it has been recorded that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunityto defend himself and considering his criminal records, the order of extemment was rightly passed. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the appellate authority has considered the criminal records of the petitioner in its order. it has aiso been recorded that the petitioner did not submit reply till 13/4/09 and .Aerefore, the petitioner's defence was closed, he was proceeded exparte and t-i ' ' ' ' final order was passed on18/5/09. Learned counsel for the State submitted that even though the appellate authority did not specifically dealt with the grounds raised in the appeat, from the reading ofthe entire order, it is apparent thatthe appeal was duly considered and it was recorded that even though the petitioner was given opportunity to improve himsetf but he continued to remain involved in the criminal activities and he was granted atmost 1 % years time to subm'rt his defence but he did not show any interest and the order of extemment has been passedafter considering his criminal records. ;8. Apart from various grounds which have been taken by tfte petitioner in the petition, one of the ground taken is that the externment proceedings were fcced for his reply on 13/4/09 but on reaching ttie Court of District Magistrate, he was informed that the Court is closed, the same being local holidaydue to Baisakhi festival and further that he would be communicated a new date. The petitioner has placed on record, copy of order of Commissioner, Sarguja wherein, 13/4/C® is declared local holiday. A perusal of order sheet dated 13/4/C®shows that the proceedings were drawn bythe District Magistrate and recording absence ofthe petitioner, he was proceeded ex-parte. In support of specificaverments which I;UIM;)^:^^.: -iilBti'- ^aR^^e=£^ •?'1 1:11.1 U^i' .]• "^Vf: «». 3 |^,"r;ij'i3:.i3a(| g v^/ 'y.:/' 4 have been made in the petition and grounds raised with regard to the fact that 13/4/09 was a local holiday, learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that itwas very specifically stated in the memo ofappeal that 13/4/09 was a local holiday yet, the petitioner was shown absentand was proceeded ex-parte and in that context, specific grounds of violation of principles of natural justice has been raised to assail the order passed bythe District Magistrate inappeai. However, from the order passed by the appellate authority, 1 do not find that specific grounds raised in the appeal have been taken into consideration. 1 also find that .^fte appeilate authority has not consideredthe grounds which were specifically raised by the petitioner in his appeal. Since the order of the Collector resulted in serious consequences against the petitioner, Uie specific grounds raised by the petitioner particularly with regard to atleged illegality in drawing proceedings on declared holidayi.e. on 13/4/09 was required to be considered by the appellate authority. t:iiii:i /' 9. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the order passed in appeal is unsustainable in law and is consequently set aside. The appeilate authority shall consider various grounds which have been raised by the petitioner in his appeai including grounds relating to 13/4/09 being declared holiday ahd its effect on the proceedings drawn by the District Magistrate. The petitioner shall submit copy of the order passed by this Court withinone month before the appellate authority whereafter the respondent authority shall decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. I •• — -• 9. The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. ~~— ~ Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ,^%^.^IJudge • pl"<-j 3^^^^^^ ^jQs£«-^£^£;^^^^ ^ S^e:!?fi±^S??•