^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. S^Be _J2003 PETmONER Firm Ganeshilal Gulabchand through its Sole ProprietorMaturamAgrawal, S/o Late Shri Gulabchand, aged 69 years, R/o NearRailway Station, Naila, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS "^" 1. 2. 3. 4. Kailash General Stores through Murarilal Agrawal, R/o Champa DistrictJanjgir-Champa (C.G.). Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) Deputy Collector, Bilaspur(C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE iB/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT. ORDERS OR DIRECTION. r XI-HC-22 STI^T^T 'f^w^nt^i fr iF^IW^ftn !'^-.,-. |la»a» •^^••^^ .c^^.. , -3^ -^NId^, '^^'l^, ^dwy ^^.....-..?...^.;..........^ ^ •f^^y' 3Rn^T'^ITW^ft^ 13.02.2004 'cRlzsferih-iTO^ ^ 'fe1c3t <Fn<^R ^srf^ROT^r Shri Rajeev Shrivastava,| Heard, Tlie petitioner has prefei|s 227 of fhe Constitution of In4 forced to file fhis writ pet| Constitutioii of India ia unii^ fhc part of the Sub Divisiona| part of Uie Additiosial District 6| The brief facts leadiiig to| counsel for fhe petitioiier, red fbis writ petition under Article ia rattier tlie petitioner lias beeii don uuder Article 227 of the ual circunistaiices aiid laxity on Of&ccr, Jaajgir amd also on the. Sessions Judge, Jaojgir. I filiiig of tliis writ petition are fliat respondent No.l who is ten^rit of fhe petitiouer inoved mi application for fixation of sta3|idard rent ia flie Court of Reiit ControUmg Authori.ly, Jaiijgir i| aad the Authority had passe4 GaseNo.2/1981-82/A-90(2). ^ Rent ControUin.g Authority th^ appeal before tlie Additional IJ AddL Distodct Jzidge decidcd e. Sub Divisional Officer, Jaiijgir an order dated 07.06.1982 m ieirig aggrieved by the order oftlie t petitiouer herein preferred aii |)istrict Judge, Bilaspiir aad fhe the same on 12.12.1986 and reversed ttie order of the Rent C^ntroUmg Autliority. Again.st the order dated had filed a Misc. Secoud Appea tlien High Court ofM.P., Jabal] 12.12.1986 the rcspondent No.l bearuag No.42 / 1987 before fhe Diir ancl that appeal was decided on 17,07.1992 an.d High Coi4rt rciEiaxidcd thc case back to Additional District Judge, Bila^pur for deciding tlic appeal m accordao.ee witli tlie order pas^ecl by tlie High Gjurt arid tlie 4- XI-HC-22 ^rrt^'^T ^^^(^T '^-"^"^rftcf ^i. ^ , . ,x ^p ^^ "^pn^ra, ^^<Ko, Rt^tt^^ ^F^T ^iliR ^ ^.^o-^S-^/ o^ •^t 200 %N^IF ^NIch R*<b4P iii^r '^fl^^i ^^i^< yi^a o Z - Reiit Additibiial recokxis Jar^jgir case was received bv fhe Jaajgiron 18,03.1999. Siiicc fhc case was District Judge, Jaojgir numbj Sub Divisional Officer i.e. records of the said case and tlie Additional District Judg<|, was already sent to the fhe AddL Distt. Judgel Collector for sendmg flie to Sub Divisional Officer, Court. The Siib Divisionall commiinication dated 08.11|, Jiidge, Jaojgir fhat fhe relev^ /to 2nd A.D.J., Biiaspur on OS.p^ has not been received aiid couusel for fhe petrtioner siac| the Additional Distdct Judge, Leanied counsel for account of iion-availability o:| part of fhe concenied aufhori^y has not been yet decided. lu the facts and Bilaspur uiider wliose jurisc|ic Jaojgir falls is directed to ascertaia the availabilitv of CJ3urt of Additional Distdct Judge^ <shl4?<?(^wl ^w^iT^ ife^ <Rq^.« i&^f^^n^r r^Biajided back, fhe leamed Addl, ^r of times sent requisitioas to the Conti'oUiiig Authority for sendmg |n tara SDO, Jangir has intimiated t^ Jaajgir that the relevaiit record District Jzidgc, Bilaspur, thcn Janjgtr sent a rcquisition to fhe and tlie Collector wmte a letter to send fhe records to th.e said Officer^ Jaiigii' inforaied vide its 1.2000 to thc Additional District ^nt records have already beeii sent ,P8.1982 aad fhereaiter fhe rccords |as per the statenient of leanied then tiie matter is pending before |Jaajgir. |ttie petitioner submits ttiat on the records aad inaction ou th-e ri^y the matter is stiU pendnig aad it circzi4istances jurisc|icUon the A^^ District Judge, botii courts at Bilaspur & |conduct aa enquisy ia order to Ifae concemed record and if aiw XI-HC-22 '^a? ^j|<41d<Lt, ^'a1«4i<o,l^^^y ^3?T^T ^T fe^w^n^i ^iW^Tftn . .1 K; n.^^ ^ . 1 WWI§^^8C|» 3nt^r x^% ...yi;.P:..s..?Mio^, ,„ -M •l^^ar' sn^i^^i^R^IN 0i lapse is> fouiicl on tlie po^ action be iiutiated agaii]| couducted expcditiously a| records is uot traced out e^ Distiict Judge is dii'ected opportunily to aU. fhe conc^ copies of fhe docuinents f^ 'cbMid^l'l 441^wf "^ fe^ if^t^K ^T^ri^H^T^T 1 of aiiy einployee then flie proper st thera and enquiry should be nd if for aiiy reasou the relevajit ^en after enquiiy then the Additional |to reconstitute tfie file after giviii^ |n:ied parties aad obtaio. the relevaat IQIII fheni, This should be done expcditiously but not later f|ian three inonths. Wifh fhe aforesaid peution staiids disposed of. In view of fhe above oi heariag staiids disposed of. Ccrtified copy as per ^ observations aad directions, fhe rder, I.A. No. 10273/2003 for m'gent lulcs, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^-^fe^ ./