1 c^, '•s^ ,s"s.^:?.^ E BENGJI' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATJ1SGARH AT BILASPUR, W^P,(SL , /2010 FETITIONER: Hiralal Kosre Aged about 45 years S/o Shri Khorbahra Ram Kosre, R/0 ViUage & Post Bharritola, Block Manpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS ...wSSWa-s'' RESPONDENTS: .^•^••^ •s.y- ^-^ •^is// ^. ^. ^^^y ^ ./ 1*]^^^1 (•S '^^a, ^^ 1. r^State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. < Comnussioner/Director Tribal Welfare Department Government of Chhattisgarh Mantiralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^ 3. CoUector District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 4. Assistant Commissioner Department of Tribal Development Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA_ FOR.^SSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS^ND CERTIQRARI^ANDJFOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:- As stated above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:- As stated above in the cause dtle. ^ .^. ]lll !| l IH 1TIE' -Wi.'ssiB'g'S jjgilil^g.ar PETiTIONER H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETSTiON (S) N0.75S9 OF 2010 Hiralat Kosre Versus State of Chhattissarh & Others RESPONDENTS CA'rit Petition under Articie 22S ofthe Constitution of Sndia) Singte Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Jitedra Pali, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri SaBsh Gupfa, Government Advocate for the State. 1. 3. 4 &RDERJQRAU; (Passed on ftis24iBdayofMarch, 2011} Heard iearned counsel for the parties. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the auestion of law invoived in the instant Detition is asto whether show cause notice after decision has been taken is sustainable in law. Learned counsei further submits that against the impugned show cause notice dated 29-11-2010 (Annexure - P/1) other similarty situated persons have come to this Court. This Court in Rajesh Kumar Shukla v. State of ChhatSsgarh & Others and other connected matters after having considered the issue at ienath held "11. !n ffje case on hand, ffiiere is no stotutory provision to provicSe post-dec'istonaj hearing, which necessitates review of the order in futl. Appfying tfta v/ell settl^i principtes of !aw fo ff?s facts of fte csse whers admittectty decision to quash ffie earlier onier of pmmoSon was taken before 'issue of show cause notice. Thus, shaw causa nof.ca is viVatad." Thereafter, the notice dated 29-11-2010 was consequentty quashed. Leamed counsei prays that simiiar order may be passed in this case also. Shri Satish Gupta, iearned Government Advocate appearing for the State, concurs with the submission made by the iearned counsei aoDearina for ttie oetitioner. !n view of foregoing. the writ petition is allowed in the same terms of the order passed in Raje^i Kumar Shukla (supra) and the impugned notice dated 29-11-2010 is quashed. No order asto costs. ' VVP {S) No.7658 of 2010 (decided on 25-1-2011) Sd/- .. .„: ^/^Bfe0tri Judge .^•.•,..:'- •-„. •':"'~'^5u'iana;