V 4g . W IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT a BILASPUR Writ Petition No. “2437 /2oo4 WRIT PETITION U A 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 6F INDIA PETITIONER Shiv Kumar@ Gudda, S/ o. Tuisi Prasad Shafma, aged about 30 years, R/Q. Nayaparé, Bemstara Distt. Durg (C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh O$K' Through the Collector Ox’ i‘“ ' ' w}, W\ . . Distr1ct Durg (C.G.) . ‘0‘\ x 2. The Collector District Durg (C.G.) Office Incharge. P.S. Bemetara, District Durg (C.G‘.) . XI-HC-22 mmmw mm WW %Wa1r%¥1 miewgcaé Shri Sudhir Ema: counsel for the petitionar. Shri hri 'Sanjay SAgmwal, Govsrnmant Advocaté foxf thE State/ raspo11d€nt$ The patitionér ’has pmi‘E‘red this writ petitian undEr Article 226/227 Of thé Constitution Of India, whereby 116 has questianed zhe iégality and propriety of the Show causa notice dataci 26/07/2004 issued by respondent No.2 under Sectic ns 5 (a) $5 (b‘j and 6 of Chhattiegharh Rajva Surakeha Adhinivam,’ 199C for sshowing cause to the petitioner as to why an externment order shod-:1 not be passec‘ against him from the district mentioned in the notice 1C? a period of one year. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned notice in which as 1 . . 1. many as 13 instances of the criminal activities of the petitioner have be 3n mentioned. in View f the above fact, i has issued notice Without any am of Sections 5 and 6 of u,nhattisg However, etitioner is at liberty to respondent No.2 after giving oppc eiiidenc‘e will decide the matter é Court. Therefore, i do not find any Iiabie to be dismissed and it is dis: 6/2004 stand disposer, Sdl- L.C.BHADOO Judge Consequentlv, M.W.P.No.22 1 1/2004 and LANC of. r t cannot be said that respondent No.2 hority or the said notice is not in terms arh i Rajya Suraksha Adhinivam, 1990. fiie reply to Show cause notice and )rtunity to the parties for leading their is per the law laid down by the High force in- this writ petition and same is U1SS€CL [WW E