Lo^ -....••-"•"..' V-- ;^.sgfe^r ^x? c-^.\-^ INTHEHON'BLEHIGHeOURTOFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.(S)NO. ^5€3 72009 PETITIONER BliB' KESPONDENTS ^K;;^^ SS ^^i;^ aa Bholadas. Mahant, S/o. Mitkudas Mahant, Aged aboiit^ 44 years, R/p; Sifapur, Surguja (CG) ..VERSUS: ' • • ;. • •:- 1] ' Sfate of Chliattisgarh, ThrougK: SeGretary, , Agricylture' : (Allirnal Husbandry) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2] Director,': : , Veterinary , ^Services, •ChhattisgaiAi,Raipu^(CG). : ' '•^^ 3] Deputy Directoi', 'Veterinary Services, Ambikapur;, Distriet Surguja (CG) ^) ; ColIeGtor,, : Ambikapur, ^ Siffguja,' ^@tstrictSurguja(CG)^ ; , ^^^^^.^^^^^^^ •Denial' j^ur, Assistadt ^¥eleri^^ : Field'OfGfier, Gersa, Disttict Surgiija WmTI^l'ITIOMUNDERAR;TI(3LE2260FTHE l-:i.'C'C>]NSTITlWaN.OS'.:imi)IA'.':::':. ' - •1): .•• ' -i Kf :a« II 's ii ^•f • n w u 1<' HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITtON (S) N0. 2563 Oi= 2009 PETITIONER Bhoiadas Mahant RESPONOENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Articte 225 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K.Agnlhotri, J. Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjape, counsei for the petitionsr. Ms Smita Ghai, Panei Lawyer forthe State. Shri Anand Shukla, counsel forthe respondenf No.5. ORDER (ORALV (Passed ont'nte 24ttl day of September, 2009) 1. With the consent of iearned counsel appearipg for the parties, the petition is heard finallv. 2. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the imDuaned order dated 24-2-2009 fAnnexure - P/1) has been passed on the representation made by Shri Oenial Kujur whereby the petitioner has been affected. It is not an order passed on administrative exigency. It is necessary that who is iikeSy to be affected should siso be considered while considering the reoresentation of another emRtovee. Contention of the learhed - counse'fo? fry,..fe;.;tk^,3r:meritsacj:;Sptance. 3. SF Leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that in such icases the other employee who is likely to be affected either by tHe first order or subsequent should be given an oppbrtunity and this order cannot be upheld from any angle. ~4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 strongly counters the submissions made by the petitioner. On query, why it is Tumane s an administraiive order.it is submitted that since the pstitioner has been declared as surpius emoiovee, he should not be aivsn opportunity of hearing. The sforesaid contention of learned counsei appearing for the respondent No.5 is not supported by sny legal provisions or judicial pronouncements. The jurisdiction must be exercised after affording an opportunitv of hearing to either side. Thus. this contention is rejected. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 24.2-2009 (Annexure - P/1) is quashed and the Coilector, Sarguja, is directed to reconsider the reDresentation of the resoondent No.5 after hearing the petitioner and other affected i employees. Thereafter, appropriate orders.in accordance with !aw and on its own merits, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, mav be oassed. !n the resuif, the writ Detition is aiiowed to the extent indicated above. withthe aforesaid direction. No order asto costs. Sd/- ;: SatishICAgnihotn] Judge !