HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR ON Writ Petition (Q) No. 5783 of 2009 Bharat Lal Sahu, S/o Late Shri Motilal Sahu, Aged about 54 years, Occupation Advocate, R/o Kutchery Chowk, Pandri Raipur, (C.G.) PETITIONER Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Registrar Firms and Societies, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C-G-) 3. Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, 0—3 Anupam Nagar Raipur, Raipur, C.G. 4. M/s. Aryan Enterprises H.No. 36/841 Near D.M. Piaza Chhotapara Raipur (C.G.) Mohammad Altaf S/o Mohammed Iqbal R/o Jethabada, Moudhapara, Raipur (C.G.) Navkar Firms Private Ltd. Through : Managing Director Ramesh Kumar Verma, S/o Tarachand Verma, Tikariha Niwas, Behind Vivekanand Ashram Raipur (C.G.) 7. Mohd. Farooq S/o Wali Mohammed Jhanda Chowk, Pandri Raipur (C.G.) 8. Smt. Qamar Fatima, W/o Dr. M. Khan Kutchary Chowk Pandri Road Raipur (C-G-) (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Appearance : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyerfor the State. ORAL ORDER (18.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the tenant of respondent No.8. He is holding the possession of rented premises belonging to respondent No.8. Respondent No.8 in collusion with respondents 4 \\.\ \ \\ W.P.[C! No. 5783 0f2009 2 I/"‘\\ x \AQ ,. to 7 have now constituted a Firm and they are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the rented premises. He submits that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit in civil court, Raipur. He submits that on account of all these malafide action, the petitioner has filed a complaint dated 23.4.2008 before respondent No.2, therefore, respondent No.2 may be directed ‘to take appropriate action against respondents 4 to 8. Copy of the complaint has been filed as Annexure-P/4. ln fact, Annexure-P/4 is an application for cancellation of the registration of the Firm. No direction from this Court is necessary in relation to the said complaint. lt is on the authority concerned to see that if a complaint is made and the same appears to be legally cognizable, the action should be taken on that. I am not inclined to entertain this petition for hearing. The petition is accordingly disposed of. However the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his complaint dated 23.4.2008. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge VAN