’d £3 /,, m (w """IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P.(S)N0. L‘MB /2010 SmGLE Raga l Smt. Geeta Gupta, W/o- Shri Ganesh Gupta, Aged about 37 years, R/o- Village-Purani Basti, Block—Sitapur, Distt. - Surguj a, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Ij‘.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat- Surguja, Distt. Surguj a, Chhattisgarh. /Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Sitapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA t HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1973 OF 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Geeta Gupta Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 28‘ day of April, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by press release (Annexure — P/1) the petitioner was asked to file affidavit acknowledging that the petitioner has filed certain forged documents (fabricated documents), else it was threatened that First information Report would be lodged against her. 2. The issue came into consideration before this Court in Baijnath Prasad Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others1 and other connected matters. 3. This Court after considering all the aspects of the matter, quashed the press release reserving liberty to the respondent authorities therein to do the needful, in accordance with law, after affording-proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may also be allowed in the same terms. 4. Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State clearly submits that the‘issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Baijnath Prasad Gupta (supra). 1 WP (S) No 5592 of 2009 (decided on 6-4-2010) (2} l have examined the facts of the present case as we” as the decision of this Ccurt rendered in Baijnath Prasad Gupta (supra) and l am of the considered opinion that the facts are identicai. In view of foregoing, the press release is quashed. as the same shall not be given effect to. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps after affording proper opportunity of hearing‘to the petitioner, if so advised. Needless to say that it is for the parties to take appropriate action thereafter, if need be, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. 1 :\;~v> ~~.v./~\ £7 Sd/. ‘\\\ SATISH K. AGNmomI Judge