SINGLE BB ^" ^-/<^-p / IN THE mGH COURT OF JTJDICATURE AT BDLASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N02:7.5.^/05 PETITIONER: Narendra kumar dubey, S/o Shri Durga prasad Dubey aged 44 Years Lower division Clerk (Chhattisgarh Resettlement Development Corporation ) R/o Village Newra Tahsil Tekhatpur Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) ^^ \y RESPONDENTS: Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Adhosafcrachna Vikas Nigam (Periwahan prabhag) Raipur (c.g.)Through- Compg^ent Authority. 2. Industrial Training Institute GourelaP.o.Goure^[pendra)Distt. Bilaspur (c.g.)Through Prmcipal, I.T.I. Gourela-Pendra. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WMT ORDER AND DIRECTION. ^tT" HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. Petitioner Resoondents WRIT PETSTSON N0.2755 OF 20Q5 Narendra Kumar Dubey versus Chhattlsgarh Adhosanrachna Vikas Nigam (Periwahan Prabhag), Ralpur and another Present : Mr. Samir SJngh, counseS for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Dubey, PaneS La\wyer for the State/respondent No.2. None appears for respondent No.1 . ORDER (Passed on 6th Day of February, 2007) Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits th-at the petitjoner, whi!e working as Lower Division Cterk. by order 19- 4-2004 (P-1), was relieved from the office of the Chief Generat Manager, Chhattisgarh Adhosanrachna Vikas Nigam (Periwahan Prabhag), Raipur to join the ofRce of the Principa!, Jndustrial Training !nstitute, Gourela within a period of eight days. According to the petjtjoner, the petjtioner was not permitted to join the Industrial Training Institute, Gourela. 2. The said reiievjng order was passed In April, 2004. ThereafSer, what has happened Is not known from the pleadings. tt is a z^ simpSe case of compliance of the order of the Chief Genera! Manager, Chhattisgarh Adhosanrachna VJkas Nigam (Pen'wahan Prabhag), Raipur. 3. This Court, In exercise of its jurisdiction under Artlcle 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot exercise its power to interfere with such matters, where there Is no allegation of infringement of any legal right. The petjtloner not have any tegai right. The petjtion is frivolous and deserves to be dismissed. 4. AccordJngty, the writ petition is dismissed summarity. No as to coste. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Qspsj