BEFORE THE HON*BLE HIGH COORT OP GHHATTISGASH s BILASP^R, W.P.N&. _ /5^ 2001, .w Betlt.lonw Vljay Baghel S/o fiatc Shrl N«3E»,Bagh®l• aged 40 years, «/ovillage-t^la, Tah. Batan, Olstt.SORQ (C.G»). R. ^Vo. VERSUS,, R®sppn^^ts_< l^Otate of chhattlsgarh^ '^rough $ Ik-i.neip^l Secretary, ^\ t'-...—*? Sfcate <3ovt,of chhattdlsgary^ ^•^K^&^- -.. '. . ..:- ;..^'""^^:1;"'"V'"V*'T Chhattlagarh Mantralaya, ^^ .^•^'^^'(^^ —-' r\ 3..:^-" ..-•••*'*' J.-* -•*.'.•• ^ • •fm 1" ^ ^ ^' RAIPUR, 2 , H&n*ble Nlnlster of Reveatte, State °ovt«ofGhhattisgarh ^rl Bhoo^esh Baghel^Mantralaya Raipur. R/o Blilal-3,%stt»B8org (c.o,)» 3. Sttpdt.of Eblice, Dlstt»DU%©(C.G«). 4. Addl.s.P. (Slty) BAatt.ouao 5, Sab Divisional Hagistrate^ Batan^stt* 1Dwg (c.<?») 6, Siab Slvlsional t<laglstrate«BhAlal• Qtstt.liyrg (G.o.)« 7• C•S«P< Chhaonl» Bhtlai., Darg (C^G»)< 8. Town Inspector of feliGe^ Itolice Sfcation^ P^ar^ai Bhllai, Oiatt<Barg (C*@<) \ «aatd,.2 mTP RETITION imDER ARTTO.B 226/227 OP T?ffi CONSTITUTIOKr I»AW 05' INDIA. ^^^?T--" XI-HC-22- 3?i'^T^T ^H^T.S^^T ^te^TtiaT ^-^ ^Tra^i^i', ^ft^FI^, ^^TC:iy( c^fe^ ^-,•^. .^.,'..?-.M»....15:'.^.1^00Y «i.-...*..-..-.'.-..i^. 200 ^fl^^^T^^^f^ 02-05-2002 Shri T.K. Tiwari, lefluned c^ Dr. N.K. Shukh, learned Heard. This petition styled as filed by the petitioner on 1+ie A^unicipal Councit, Charocki, Dis^ •^N^^iw^f ^ fe^r °(^?R ^3?^?^^T »unselfor the f»titioner. ddl. Adv. fieneral for the Sta1®. ^dl Public Interest Litigation hos been ^round that he is the President of Durg. It is submjtted that cerbin members of the Shiv Sena had given a call and wanted to subn^it a memorandum to the Mmister of Revenue, Stflrt®of Chhattisgarhj Shri Bhupesh Baghel and some-riiing is stated to have trflm^ired in tl^is reyird. Counsel for the (»titione|'submitted that one Rajesh Thwxr'i, Durg Zikx Pramukh of Shiv S^pa hod submitted a repoi*t to the Station House Officer, Purani B?iihi - 3 Distt. Durg but it is the petitioner that Mud Ra^di Tiwqri it of Police nor filed any petition* submission of the counsel for did not approach the SupeFinl The petitiQner himself did not petitioner was asked whether he| odge any report or com|>kxint. The himself had lodged any report upon which counsel for the petition^r asserted that the petitioner has ^ not filed ony report. [Tfti?'^fe^ f^^ XI-HC-22- <( "^^r ^rai^pT, ^^?T?, TN^rey ..^.:.!-.MO;...\S:^I^^ 3?(^T^ f^w^nt^T ^iwdin ^T^l'^^l^R^^ C2-) ^Plf^fr'T TTR^Tf"? fe^ ^^$K '^^R^i^r The scope of under Artij India js an extra ordinary onti bles 226/227 of the Consti-hition of If it is to be invoked as Public Interest Utigation -Hie petitior^er has to ^itisfy the Court on the question involved. It is said ticrt- Ziki Pramukh of Shiv Sena had submined the report to the Sfation House Officer. Rajesh Tiwan being Zila Pramukh of Shw SefKx is a person who can ventitate his grievanGe before appropriate florum. The matter retates to the individual rights of a person wh^re individual rights are invotved and who are able to prosecute their is not avaihbte eqaecially when^ [case, interference as P30. in a matter 1 Ihe petitioner who has come to this Court does not soy that he hi^nself had witnessed -Hie incident or lodged the report. Even otheijwise -riie provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are there tc who wantto bring it to the noti safeguard the interest of per^>ns ice of 1+ie Station Houdte Officersoi* demand of justice wo®served the Superintendent of pojice as -^i®case moy be. We havegone through th4 recopdand noted thatno notiGefor by the petitioner* ftajesh Tlwari himself had inclivtdual right andjas he fe said to be Zifa Pramukh of Shiv Sena, he has not come for^ard in any capadty. In our opinion r no case hos been made out flor interference as Public Interest [Tft^'^f^ XI-HC-22- ^^ '^TpiM?i, "g^Fi^, 'f^rray ^ U3-P- \S°l<>\^<») .„ 200 ^l^l'^T "fe^F ^n^r ^Ri^^f%7i .-;- ^l- ^•-i +- ^n^f'^IT^T ^fiH c^-) r^linary Litigation invoking extra or^linary 226/227 of Ihe Constitution making any comments on the case in hand doesnot fall withinjambit of Pubtlc Interest 4f melrits In view of the matter -this petttion fails ond is accordmgly dismissed. Securit/ amount, if ^leposited, be refunded to the petitioner/counsel for the petiti^ner as per rules. Sd/- Chief Justice '^Rfe?^T 'HTWif ^ fe1cst ^fa^T< ^3?^T^?^T jurisdict'ion under Articles India. We hav®refrcuned from af the ccxse as in our opinion this Utigation. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [^^fe^