^^ \°..^:"6"t r<^^.^t ^^r^\y9^ l^e^..^3''\3.\ AeA.^-"""' } C^ l<f^2)/'9 £®Si ,e<es i- LN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. ('S)NO. ^-^7/2008 PETITIONER : / Harish Chandra Pashe, 5 S/oLate . Shri Ramadhin Pashe, aged about 55 years / Retired Meter Reader, vigilance R/o HIG-6 Arya Colony Tifra, Distt.-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. TheChairman,C.S.E.B., Daganiya^ Raipur (C.G.) L d 2. The Chairman, M.P.^.E.B., Jabalpur (M.P.) 3. ChiefEngineer,C.S.E.B. Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Executive Engineer, C.S.E.B.Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT.ORDERS, AND DIRECTION ETC. HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRlTPEZmON._(Sl_N0^3070_F..20.08 PETITiONER Harlsh Chandra Pashe l\ RESPONDENTS Versus The Chairman, CSEB & Others OA/rit petitlon under Artlcle226 ofths Constitutlon of Indla) Slngle Bench : Hon'bis Shri Satlsh K. Agnihoirl, J. Present:- Ms Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Amlyakant Tlwan, counsei for the respondents. QR_D£.R_(ORAL.l (Passed on thls 7 day of November, 2009) Earller the petitioner has flied a petitlon being W.P. (S) No3S5S of 2007 Gowri seeking Tor the same reiief, as sought for In this awfrit petition. On 28-5-2007 (Annexure - P/4) iearned counsei appsaring for the'petitioner, on Instructions, withdrew the petltlon with a liberty'to take action before the. appropriateforum. 2) On the papers made availabie In the preseni petition, it Is not clear asto whether any actlon was taken by the petitioner before the approprlate forum or not. However, from the letter dated 12-10-2001 (Annexure - P/2) it appears that the inforinatlon was •sought.under the provislons of the Right to information Act and the.Executlve Engineer (O & T) Dlvision, CSEB, Nanendragarh, Korea, expiained that aii the Interest due and payabie to the petitloner had already been paid and there is no provlslon for nnaking payment of interest. 3) The petitloner has not impugned any communlcation or any othsr order In this petition. The petltioner reiterates the same prayer, which was considered and the petltloner withdrew the petjtlon wlth' liberty to take recourse to appropriate form.. It appears-that no recourse to appropriate forurn has been taken and the second petition has flted for the same reiief without any.rhyme and reason. 4) In view of foregolng, this wrlt petition Is dlsmissed as not malntalnabie. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge