f \66 W/‘Sina"! Qanc‘h 5 5 N ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIL/ASPUR WRIT PETITION No. é QS OF 2005 PETITIONER: /Devendra Kumar Tahalyani, son of Shri H.P. Tahalyani, QQ¢Q%>’QJ€ Proprietor M/s Tahalyani & Brothers, Crematorium, Ravi Gram, Telibandha, Raipur. VS RESPONDENTS: / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Forest, D.K.S. 6 “(M Bhawan, Raipur. yd) /2. The Conservator of Forest, 40}\/@ Qé Raipur Circle, Jail Road, vgfwfv Raipur‘ §V 6" .x/ / 3. The Divisional Forest r ’ &\% Officer (G), Forest Division Dhamtari, District Dhamtari. /’ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI—HC—22 Manama, Wm, W31 mm mms’agéwlazg§fw mm mm ‘ mmmw WW§WW WW %3T%um 3-3-2005 8hri Ajit Singh, counsel for the petitionet. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. Heard beth the cou'nsel. The only grievance rais ed by the petitioner in this petition is that he has been biackiisted vide im ugned order Annexure-P/1 dated 8-10-2004 without giving show cause noti e to the petitioner. Perusal of the order nexure-P/1 reveais that on 5-8-2004 when the auction proceedings wer in process the petitioner‘s representadve misbehaved and created obst uction in the process of auction and that is why he has been blacklisted. From the perusal of this order It is otear mat no show cause notice was iven to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Therefore, this score only. this order is bad and iiabie . i to be set aside. In View of the above, the impugned order is set aside. However, it is i made clear that respondents are not precluded from ptoceeding for the i l same conduct of the petitioner after giving show cause notice. With the aforesaid o ervation and direction. the petia‘on stands » / disposed of. .r" _ Consequently, M.(W.) . No.559/2005, and LA. No.1 407/2005 also stand disposed of. - l i Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order. I i. Sd/- L.c.BHAooo NV, (sew) r. a. .