‘ g HIG COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DWISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Petition No.1998/2002 Petitioner Satish Sharma, S/o Shri Nand Kishor Shanna, aged about 4O years, Sa Mm owner, Oid Power Huse, Toma, Dis Bilaspur (CG) ,r y Sate ‘of Chhattisgéirx Through Secretary Dept of Forest, Govt of Chhattisgarh Secretariat, DK hawan, GE Road, Raipur (CG) 2 Shri uranmal Sinhania, S/o Shri Rameshwar Singhania, nghania Lakdi Lagh Udyog, Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, Distt Janjgir — Champa (CG) 3 The Conservator of Forest Govt Chhattisgarh , iiaspur (CG) 4 Sub Divisional Officer, Fores, Janjgir — Champa Division, District Janir - Champa(CG) 5 Director Generai Central ureau of investigation, New elhi Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India Present : Shri VG Tamaskar, counsel for te petitioner. Shri WS Murthy, Deputy Avocate General with Shri Akhil Agrawai, Panel awyer for the State! respnden No.1 & 3 to 5. Shri SRJ Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.2. (07m setn'2., zoo g'i'ii s) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, c.J. \ H w o tt VERSUS t a' B Respondents P g Si u of B t jg B CBI D h d L ots ,Nmw Amww‘m.‘ Wm“ k. WW. Petitioner Satish Sharma, a sawmill owner in the dis'trict of Biiaspur, has filed rthis writ petition styled as ‘Public interest Litigation’ for the following reliefs " “(i) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash Annexure P -’l by issuing a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus. (ii) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No5 to investigate into the matter and submit the report before this Hon’ble Court by issuing a writ of Mandamus. (iii) Any the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue any other writ or writs. direction or directions, order or orders deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2) The petitioner, in substance was seeking a direction to respondents No.1 and 3 to 5 for taking action against respondent No.2 for the alleged breach of the license conditions. 3) Shri WS ‘Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit tiled on behalf of 1, 3 & 4 submitted that the competent authorities have already taken action in accordance with law against respondent No.2. 4) in this view of the matter we are satisfied that no further direction is required to be issued in the writ petition. , 5) The writ petition, y thus,stands disposed /* of./ 4"“. " so! t M Chief Sd/r: Justice \J V sun“ ~ K;mar judge Sa‘i‘ha / L