T '^ BEFORE THE HON'BLfc: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S)No.^^^ of 2010 PETITIONER J.P. Sahu, S/o. Moti Lal Sahu, aged about 50 years, Revenue Inspector (Bhu-Abhilakh), R/0 Village Pamgarh, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^y^ :1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector Janjgir-Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. The Additional Collector, Janjgir- Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^. w^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN QFJNDJA. ^I^F^T'f^NT ?w ^n^ ^*ii^ ^ N8*1^1 W^I^t^ 7ST '^l'Mlcn^, yTli-H<l<o, [c«ni-M^< ^....:K>.t&l)&».:..S.&3.6.l!^yo ^n^T^sw (^Il^^) I^TW^ft^3TI^T SB : non5bie Shri Fvlanindra Moh 05-07-2010 Shri Gautarn Ketrapal, couns Shri Vlnod Tekarn, F'anel La^ On 9/6/2010, thls Court had petltlon^r 25/06/2010, again tlme was grantec usate no reply has been filed. Heard cn admlssion. The grievance of the the petltioner is belng heid In vjol| much as even though the 19/05/2010 (Annexure P/5) for sup| his reply, those docurnents have n<^t A perusaj of memo dated reference to petjtioner's applicatloh informed that he may remaln preset records and may aiso obtain copie^ by the petitioner on an apprehensic|? to him. Learned counsei for thel notlce has been issued requlring l^ which, ex-parte proceedings wouid| Submission of learned dated 23/05/2010, petitioner has obtaln coples as per rules, He ^ presented himself In the ofRce and| |el forthe petitioner. Ify'er for respondents. jgranted respondents time to fi!e reply. On to respondents to fite repiy. Ho'wever, tiil Gh^i<yt<ill 'HI'TOf ^f fe^ 'ri^^R ^^fRiH^n^? i Shrivasta.va, J. In thls petition is that the inqulry against itlon of principles of natural justice In as |oner has subriiltted an appiicatlon on t)iy of documents necessary for submltting |t been suppileu to him, 129/5/2010 (Annexure P/6) shows that In 19/05/2010, petitloner has been ht on any working day in the office, inspect as per ruies. This petifen has been fiied 'n that the documents may not.be suppiied Ipetitloner submits that on 28/05/2010, a |im to submit his repiy withln7 days faiilng |be drawn. ?1 for resDondents is that vlde merno granted ilberty to Inspect and aiso ^ubmjts that the petitioner ought to have Inspectthe records. AccordEny to him, the coUnsei J^IT^ZT, ?T^T^IR —FS/147—2/2010 —1,00,000. ^ii^i'^T'f^W ^^ST ^TSi^T ^W^ 1» (1 ^TO^IT W*S8^» 's^ ^i^i'n^, ^>Til^^i<o, f®i<ni'y*j,< ,.LO..?.§2.'!/h9..-'...i.^Ml^ F •^200 ^I^T XT^F (^f^^) ¥^?W^?f^l^IT^T -^- petitioner ought not to have rushed •inspect the records and supply of Taking into consideration tl1< vlde merno dated 29/05/2010, petll and apply for copies of docurneijits peutloner that he wouid not be sl Accordingly, the petltioner would bej and appiy for copies of necesst necessary for him in hls defense.j concerned respondent / CoiJector, 4 he shall be aliowed Jnspectlon on for supply of documents shall also ye VVith the aforesaid observati off. ^RfeRh 'RFT^ff ^ ft^t if^^K ^^tfiR^ST 1:0 the Court vyithout avaiiing opportunity to d(S?curnents. 1e aforesald submlssions,. it is ciear that poner has been granted.iiberty to inspect "herefore^ the appr^hension of the |jppjled copies, appears to be. baseless. |at Jlberty to avaii opportunity of inspecilon ^ry docurTients as may be considered In case, the petitloner approaches the jangir-Champa wjthin 15 days from today, stjch date as oiay be fixed and hls request spcn 9e consiyefQu rnaccofciai'ice vvitn iaw» ons, the petjtlon • stands flnaiiy disposed Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge