IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WP. No. PET IT IONERS / , / @fg (10k 33$ 4Q /2oo3. 1. Mukesh s/o Lal Say, age 34 years, m Caste-Gond, Member (Agriculturist) Krishi Upaj Samiti, Ramanujganj, District surguja, C.G. RE SPONDENTS (r, 2. Arjun Singh s/o Balgovind Singh, ‘ age 29 years, Member (Agricultu- rist) Krishi Upaj 3amiti, Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja, C.Go VERSU .. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Agriculture D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. ishi Upaj Mandi Samiti , Ramanujganj , District Surguja , C.G., through its Secretary. Up-sanchalak, C.G. State Krishi Vipnan Board, Bilaspur. Chhattisga rh . 4. Yogendra ojha s/o Parasuram Ojha, aged about 42 years, Krishi Upaj Mandi samiti, Ramanujganj, District Surguja, C.G° 5. Sarju Vishwakarma s/o Ram Bharat Vishwakarma, aged about 40 years. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ramanujganj , District surguja, C. G. a. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICL" 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1. Particulars of the petitioners: Particulars of the respondents: (”I As above . As above . contd . . 2 ‘ S QO ”b N HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Wn't Petition No. 3146 of 2003 Petitioners Mukesh 85 another Versus Respondents The State of Chhatu'sgarh & others WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 OF THE COQS’I‘ITU’I‘ION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shrj Sau'sh K. Agm'hom’ J.) Shri A. K. Prasad, Advocate for the petitionem. Shn' P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 1. Ms Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the respondents No. 4 and 5. ORDERmran (Passed on this 15th day of September, 2009) Heard. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 7.12.2002 (Annexure P/7), whereby the suspension of the respondents No. 4 and 5 was revoked. 2. The petitioners are complainants, who have made complaints against the respondents No. 4 and 5. The question is what is the locus of the petin‘oners to me this petition challenging the order of revooation of suspension ofthe respondents No. 4 and 5. Admittedly, on the basis of the complaint made by the petin'onexs, certain actions have been taken on departmental side as well as on criminal side. The petitioners, after having made complaint, have no right or locus to challenge the action of the State at every stage, when the State has already acted on the complaint and the proceedings have started on criminal jurisdiction side, also. Thus, the petition is frivolous and 4. In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed, as not misconceived. maintainable. No order asto costs.