,\"T\ WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2761} 0f2007 PETITIONER : Bhagwati Prasad Dhruv Son of Shri Panchram Dhruv, aged aboui 56 years, Presentiy working ' as Headmaster, Govt, Middle: School Datrerggi, Biock Bhatapara, District— Raipur (CG). Rgsidént of Hashmipara Bhathapag Dimict Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS , State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Tha Coilector, Raipur (CG) 2. Thé Senior Accounts Offkeg Offwe of the Accountant Generai, Raipur (C.G.) The District Education Officer, Raipur (C.G.) The Block Education ()fficerq Bhathapara, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. hm« RES?ONDENTS Singie Bench : Hon’ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Shrj Ashok Soni, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for ihe Siam/respondent N0. 1, 3 and 4. Shri S.K.Beriwai, Advoca’te for the respondent No. 2. ORDER (Passed on 7m day ofMay, 2G07) Learned counse} appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the aecount slip (.Annexure 13/1) for the year March. 199% it is indieated that the petitioner has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 25,000/— as PE, Rs. 80,000/— as RF. and Rs. 72,000/- as Temporary Advance. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/- in the month of May” 1998 from RF. account is correct. So far as other withdrawals ofRs. 80.000/- and Rs 7.2;0001- in the month of January 19.99, and February 1999 are concerned” they are i’ncorreet. The petitioner has not withdrawn any HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlSGARl-I AT BILASPUR @ amount as indicatmi 1'33 the account slip (Annexure P/l). The petitioner has accordingly made various representations vide lcttcr Anrncxure PB) P/4 and 13/5" The rcspondcnt no” 2 has not made any ezlquiry in this respect. The petitioner seeks permissicn of this ccurt to make a representation requesting the authorities concerned to make verification from the relevant offices and banks. The submission of the teamed counsel seems to be just and proper tor which, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection. 4, Aeeordingly; the respondent no: 2 is directed to consider the representation if any, made by the petiticner; and to make proper enquiry in the matter as to how the amount has been shown as withdrawn from the account ot‘the petitio’nen in View of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. DJ ‘ Sci/- Satish K.Agni:~.en1i 3 J Judge Amit