s^w c°. d.S1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0^^OF 2005 PETITIQNER: 'l A ^ ^ ^' v!^ ^ o^.^w RESPONDENTS: / .,:^ ^^^y nv VERSUS . 1. ,3. / 4. / 5. G.S. Vineyard Association, (A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act), Through its General Secretaty Ai-uii Pannalal, S/o Late Shri H.R. Pannalal, Aged abut 54 years, R/o Neelanchal Vihar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. State ofChhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department ofHome,, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Secretary, Department ofRevenue, State ofChhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantmlaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Sub Divisional Magistrate (City), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Station House Officer, Police Statioii: Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Sandeep Tiwari, S/o Shri Ramsharan Tiwari, R/'o A-4, P.B. Apartments, G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Raipur, Clihattisgarh. Rakesh Jairaj, S/o Shri R.H. Jairaj, Aged about 36 years, R/o Lodhipara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^.. ^—' 0>' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2^6 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI ETC., OR DIRECTION (S) / ORDER (S) IN THE LIKENATUREETC. 000'02-9002/Sd/d ui puej eqi ;st|} peijodsj sei{ 'jndiey 's. esnoHUOseis 04^^41 peuojiueuuueeq sei pe^ eijlp A^eiA ui esjeAjed si jepjo pjes e uoipss JQpun jQMod Suisiojexe ejiqM •J^-Q- 9002-6-9 ps^P 'JQpJO SUUJQ^OJ 9||4AA ©q^ jo^ [esunoo peujeei 'eAe^seAuqs A Aq pe^ei^uj U99q ssq 6uip©soojd'9 ^ g'ON MOU^ o»©uueojauoj^ed eq^ 'Ajjnbuo uo •q; o^ pspsjip jndiey '9^431SeiAlieuojSjAia qn' •s}ud|na eq} isujeBe ue^e^ u©Qqseq uoipe yodoj v '^P^^o P uBjs pejoes eqi peq si.ueLusjs leposun euuos 'sOOZ-S-fr'l' uoffeioossv pies aqi 'uoi^ejoossv pJeAeui e po^jisuoo ©Aeqsje^ojjo^ oq^ pue UO|B||^ A^ejoos peje^sjBej e sj jeuoj^ed aq} le^ •eipuj p UOITORSUOQ eqi jo 62 ^ uoiiejoossv jeyoi^ed eq^ ^o s^Su fBiue| 403JJP jei|Pni Pue >l°°i ell^ OAOiiiej 0} s^uej; ©4^p uoipe peuBndLUj eq^ o^ Bujpeej spj| eq Ajpui>| ABLU ynoo 94} ^eq^ jsAejd eq^| ZSS ^ 9SS se|3!W •'Qpu" uoj^ed ^UM Sjqf peAo^sep •t? 01 ^ON s»uepuodsaj/9^S©4».io^eieo •jouoi^ed 041 joj jasu J^l^k(^]^^ M^l^jX (?^^J.^^^^ ^y><0]bl(b ^n (JA!O :uoi^s eojiOcj 'Jeoiyo |ij j.jesii jepjo ei<} jo ^ ejed ui leq^ ^ ieq} penBje •o-d-.iO sqip 91? |. eLjiAq passed (oi.-j ejnxeuuv) |8AeiseAUL{s Aoefesj -j^| tuoi99jujpe uo (jeuo!i4ed ^sfey -j|^ pjesq 9Agq j '^ ^S £'°N5}uepuodsej ^uepuodssj p iseL|eq eqi uo ^eq^ ^jnijo eq^ p ©»e6eqi uo >(ooj e }nd fe £-ON^uepuodsej 'SOOZ-6-1- S- UQ |ou inq 'iustxe sjqi o^ p©Bpo{SEM pue qojnqo 04} oiuj peje^ue |o pue qo-tnqo e pepniisuoQ peq sAi|Sji(s mno ss pe|A^s A^ejoo9 ^j uei^sjjqo eq? p sjeMOjjoj eqi ^o Jeuoj^sed ©q^P eseo 941 92 '93 seioji.tv -ispun ij 01 pe^uejS liuspun^ eq^ qijM eBuu^uj 0} pu ^uodsej sqi p©jipo^ 's^uepuodsej )39J 3J!}UQ ©q^JO^ j|B3 O^ p9SB9|d qij/v\ 'eipuj p UOOTI}SUOO eq^ p )ejj9^9jd seq jeuoj^ed eqi lApv^AOQ •jn>je4i •s-A'.iiA! loo teA€;seAuq9Aeofey s^ QQQZ-^-1 is^uei^ji^M^II^S ^ ~-'/ / . tblktB 1^110 lfc»D (bll^yKbi^l^ (&j26.^i) d3fch is^ue ^OOZl^ .........^.^.,..^.....,...._.,.... tblkcB ICAklk /5'S';S'"^:0)"" auas ulm xRl^lWy '?>l»l.\(pL<n'bWlblh-»baC\ *ii*ic5T^*n^ \av^ <^<i<(irt^, u>TTlwico, Rlril^^ ,y-P,5'^^/ sn^^T^rR^jch ?ian3n^?Ta?wi? -v .L-- ^':^ ^p/t^ 3TI^$T traq? (tjcl^clcg;) ^200 5" ?^TWr ^ffSPT 3TT^$T question is in possession of reported that prayer is being .disputed place. Therefore, jn passed bythe S.D.M. is perver^ Section 145 of 4he Cr.P.C. fundamental right of the mem^ therefore, the prayer asked for bj The impugned order ps| petitioner has altemative remed^ As far as interference by respo^ has aiready iodged the report taking any action, in that case, file crimina! compiaint before advised. in view of the above fact^ proceedings as permissible und| ordinary jurisdiction should be the admission stage itseif. Consequently, M.(W.)P^ stand disposed of. <^i<iiw<nTi +ii+icoV^'fc^i ^Rt^M ^srf^Tan^ST |he Christian community and it has been Iperformed by the said community at the ^iew of the above fact, the order impugned \Q and same is contrary to the provislons of ^arned counsel further argued that as the ^ers of the Association has been infringed, granted. ;|ssed by the S.D.M. is revisable and the to move revision before the Sessions Couri:. ^dents No.5 & 6 is concerned, the petitioner tt the Police Station and if the Police is not |he petitioner Association js within Its right to the Court of competent jurisdictjon, if so the petitioner is entitied to take appropriate ;r the iaw. it is not a fit case where the extra ivoked. The petition stands disposed of, at sio.4158/2005 and I.A.No.9001/2005 aiso Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge SP/FS/2005-20,000 -" ^~