a‘59 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wiit Petition {C} No. 474-4 of 2008 WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE /% CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shii Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner, Shn Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shxi Rajeev Shiivastava, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3. Shri Vineet Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No.4. 0 R D E Moral) Heard. (Passed on this 21st day of August, 2009) Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner submits that despite several complaints made to the Distxict Judge, Ambikapur and the High Court of Chhattisgarh, it' appears that no action has been taken on the complaints made by the petitioner. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that if a complaint is made, the High Court always looks into the matter and takes appropriate action on examining the veracity of the complaints and other Petitioner Bharat Prakash Tripathi, S/ o 43 occupation Versus Rsspondents 1. State of C. Cm, Through the Secrotary, Law D.K.S. Bhavan, and Legislative Department, Raipur(C.G.) the 2, High Comi of Chlmttisgarh, through Court of at Registrar, High Clmattisgarh Bilaspur. 3. The District and Sessions Judge Ambikapur, District Surguja (1G. First Additional District 4. Shri T. R. Churendra, First District and Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja C.G. / ¢m%”W facts which are involved in tha mp‘msentation. Th6 petitioner, if so adviwd, may file a fresh complaint] representation, raising his grievance, the same may be considered and decided by the High Coult of Cbhattisgarh, on administrative side, in accordance with law. In View of the foregoing, nothing remains in this petition for adjudication. The petition is accordingly dismissed. pa // /| i” / sm— _ A Satish K. Agnihotril Judg? i .