^y .-f; ' („.' IN: THE • HIGH CQURS ©F JU0IGAWRE AT BIIASPURCCHm'ITISGARfl. miT PETITION N0. ^ /200I P.I'riTIONER Babulal Sharma^ S/©*Nilkanth Sharma^ Aged 76 years^ Oeaixpafeion <-» Nxl^ Retired Govt^' Ser^ant^? R/o, Q/28»slTi(3yaiip Nagar'S Bilaspur (C«G») ^ Versus RESPONBENTS . ^c^. ^\ ,^' ..-^%^ .M^ .;.--"^'3 ^ ....J '^ ^1.^ ^^^' <^^ ,.••• ~^^>'" '^" ^i v:"^^ ^?7^ .....^" .-f^' tN' / ^' ^lt Sta-be p£ Chhattisgarli,! Through Searetary^1 Department'.of H©me(Police) ^' Nantralayafl W^K^S'S Bha^an^ Raipur (C«G«5 2» Sziperintendent. ©£ Polic^l Bilasgur (C.G») 31 Stafeion Honse Qffiaer^ Police.Station^ Civil Linesr 1 Bilaspur (C«.Ge) ,' 4<» Rahul Bajpai^ S/©. Rohini Bajpai^ Pr@p, i^SeRituraJ Steels Pvt.Ltd., R/o» Zdgah Ch©wk91 Bilaspur (C.G.) 5< M.A» Hanifi, Chief Exectitive Officerjl Bilaspur Development Authorityyj Bilaspur $C»©<») 6» Prabhat shrivastava, Es-bate Officer, Bilaspur Develapment Authorityl Bilaspur (C»G») 7^ B'y. Pradhan^ District R©gistrar,1 Staraps and Registration,3 Bxlaspur (C^G^) WRIT PETITXON •XJN0ER •AR'rie&E 22^/227 :GF THI_GQNSTITUTION OF IN©IA, FOR ISSU^NCE: OF WRIT IN THE mTtJRE OF CERTIGgARI, mNI»,M?S-I^E)- FOR O'EHER SUXI^BLE WRIT OR JiRITS, J3IRECTION OR_ DZRECTIONS,•ORDER OR ORDERS <»:« 2^:<» 3%gtS iE% W '^ 1 '^^^i^^h ^ i^ i ^ \t>" JNNIII 1»""«». HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETSTiON N0.1575 OF 2002 Petitioner Babuiai Sharma Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRiT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SNDIA (SB : Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL1 (Passed on 09th day of December, 2010) 1. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by inaction on the part of the police authorities. It is a trite iaw that if the poiice authorities fall to discharge its function, a complainant can very well make a compiaint before the concerned Superintendent of Poiice, thereafter, to the competent Judiciai Magistrate. Even otherwise; this case is of 2002 and there was no interim direction and as such, if stllS there is some grievance, the petitioner may take appropriate steps. 2. Accordingiy, the wrif petition is dismissed as having become Infructuous. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok