H IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. IS7 /2007 . / 1. Ashok Tripathi S/ o Shri Harishankar Tripathi, Aged about SO years . ‘ 2. Abhishek Tripathi S/o Shri Ashok Tripathi ged about 25 years PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS Both resident of Geetanjali Nagax Tehsil Bilaspua Dist. ilaspur (Chhattisgarh) B . VERSUS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS /'1. Inderjeet Singh Saluja S/O Late Shri Teja Singh Saluja , Aged about 53 years , Resident lof Adarsh Nagar, Tehsil and Dist, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Chhattisgar WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 o THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR IsSUANcE OF AI‘IIIIQOpIgI/ITE WRIT INVTIIE NATURE OE MANDAMus, CER'l‘lORARl AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITs, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ‘ RDES / r OR (1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONE AS shown in the cause title . A . h R XI—HC—78 Mo. $743150? W W , W , W o mm W WW(W) WWW wmm w w w m WWEWW éamm 5-2-zuu7 Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for tha p&itio11€rs. HEaI‘CL This petition is directet‘i again$t the Ol‘i'lers of Annexure F—i {lama 13—10—2006 and j 0—1~'2007 wharebv thE ohjeCT‘IOJJ of the petitioners flied under Onier 26 Ruie 10 read with Section i51 of C.P.‘C. against the revort 01‘ Commissioner has been rejected. Grievance 01 me appointed for local mspet 2001, however the Commissioner in his report dated 11—6-2001 traveled bevond the reference. It is also objected that though the local inspection was to be conducted in presence of the parties hut the same was done behind tt anv notice to them. The rejected the objection witi 13v the petitioners. From the perusal of clear that the Commission thereafter he was examine cross-examination by the report of the Commissioner, the same can only be brought to the notice of the Court during petitioners is that Uomm1331oner was 'tion with a specific purpose in the year Le back of the petitioner‘s without, issuing Court below hv the impugned order has uout deciding the specific objection raised . documents annexed with the petition, it is er submitted a report in the year 2001 and :l on oath and he was subjected to lengthy petitioners. l1” there is any anomaly in the final argument. RILU. XI—HC—78 o /\K 200% WWW mmm mwm gaiity 1'11 the impugned order occasioning f justice to The parties, which caiis for the exercise ofjurisdiction vesied under ion of india. The petition is liable to be 1t admiwion Stags itS61f. lear that the mat Court shah decide the in accordance with 1aw without being v11 made 1n this order. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considsrsd opinion that them is 110 i116 grave unusnce or failure o interference by this Court i1: Articie 2'27 of the Constitui dismissed and is dismissed However, 1t is made c CaSC 011 HS O‘VD. mE‘IitS influenced 13V anv ohsewatk Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge WW,WW,%IW w. 9.CC). No-jS7 mm(W) WWEWW %:3T%11311%&T