$§§§§§§£ EEEWE‘S Y‘w.... c$p’\ C IN TH HlGH COURT O UICATUR T'BILASPUR(C.G) ‘ » w.P. (s) No. $79 0 [201 / Sonjay NompalhworS/o A R Ncmpalhwor Aged abouf 39 years Presently posfed as the Co operchve Inspector R/o 12 Vmayok Garden Avanfi Vihor TohsH and Dls’mcf Ralpur (CG) VERSUS PETIT£IONIER / ESPONDENTS Stafe of Chhat’risgarh, Through the Secretary, Co—operativ Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) f, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Thro’ugh : The Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUST CERTIORARY AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS " d\ . ’ E § F JDE A e HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILA$PUR WRIT PETITEON (S) NO.5U0 F 2010 I V ‘ 'Nyrit Petition under Artic‘e 228 of the C nstitutiora af mdia) Singie Bench : Hon‘bie Shri Satish . Agnihctri, J. Preseni :- ? Shri 3.6. Verma, counsel for the peiiitioner. é 1 \ y Shr§ MP3; Bhatia. Dy. Govt. Advocate for the $tate. ' ORDER (ORAL ¥ (Passed 0a this 3r day of February, 2010) 1. Witi‘i the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard nnaily. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Co-bperative Department had expressed its optnion stating that it may not be proper to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner; thereafter the Law Department has granted sanction for prosecution. tf the concerned Department declined to grant sanction, the Law Department has no competence to grant sanotion. in support of the aforesaid submission the petitioner has not produced any material including ruies of business framed under. Article 166 {3) of the Constitution of india, which provio‘es for ailocation of work to the different Departments of the Government. v L Thus! the question cannot be considered for want of material. it is evident from the note sheet (Annexure — R’Z) that after recording opinion of the concerned Department! the fiie has been marked to ‘ the Secretary, Law 3epartment for finai consideration and passing the order. The process itself indicates that the Law Department is a ompetent Department to pass final order on sanctioni The opinion L c PETiTiONER Sanjay Nampauiwar i Versus i RESPONDENTS » State of Chhaftisgarh & Another expréssed by the concerned Department isl a mere recommendation and it is nut the finai rejection to gr nt sanction. The Law Depairtment has finaHy granted the sanction for prosecution againsi the pétitioner. Thus,’ at this stage, i am of the considerée'd View that there is no i irmgdiarityor iiiegaiity in the proceedings inf i question. I l Accordingly, the writ petition isi' disinissed at the motion stage itseif. K ~._/.7.':: Sdl- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI r 3 Gowri Judggx rjfi:‘i‘ww r