^ C^Lv' IN THE HON^BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. \w / 2010 PETITIONERS: ^ s^'r^- .^° ^ ^' ^y^ •^iy .^y -JT" / ^- l.Pamianand Gupta S/o Shri Shyam Bihari Gupta aged 34 yersR/o Posted at Prathmik Shala-Dhourapara Sitapur, Distt-Sarguja (C.G.) SfJL-yj^mt'f^\ 2. SuriilSa w/o Jaiprakash Gupta aged 23 years R/o Posted at Prathmik Shala Sainrathpara SitapurDistt-Sarguja C.G 3. Raj'esh Kuniar Gupta S/o Jagdish Prasad aged 32 yers Posted at Prathmik Shala Arand, Tah- Sitapur, Distt-Sarguja (C.G.) ^ 4. Santosh Kuniar Gupta S/o Rameshwar aged 32 yers Posted at Prathmik Shala Arand,Tah-Sitapur,Distt-Sarguja(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chattisgarh 2. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat- Sarguja Disst. Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur Disst. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1867 of2010 PETITIONER : Parmanand Gupta and others VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgsarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present: Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V.Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 23ra day of April, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by press release (Annexure - P/1) the petitioners wereasked to file affidavit acknowledging that the petitioners have filed certain forged/fabricated documents, else it was threatened that First Information Report would be lodged againstthem. 2. The issue came into consideration before this Court in Baijnath Prasad Gupta v- State of Chhattisg&rh & Others and other connected matters. 3. This Court after considering all the aspects of the matter, quashed the press release reserving liberty to the respondent authorities therein to do the needful, in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may also be allowed in the same terms. 4. Shri Shridhar, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents clearly submits that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court rendered in Baijnath Prasad Gupta (supra). 1 WP (S) No.5592 of 2009 (decided on 6-4-2010) /v'ti^''!%'i\ tt"''4) "^^/ Amn 5. I have examined the facts of the present case as well as the decision of this Court rendered in Baijnath Prasad Gupta (supra) and 1 am of the considered opinion that the facts are identical. 6. In view of foregoing, the press release is quashed, and the same shall not be given effect to. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, if so advised. Needless to say that it is for the parties to take appropriate action thereafter, if so advised, in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge