OJ W i Waim 33m“ IN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT O CHHATTISGA-R ' AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL No. a? t1 of 2010 WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTIO 211} OF TH’ CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISIO BENCH) ACT 2006 M P Chaturvedl, aged about 65 APPELLANT years, Vlce Chancellor Guru GhaSI _ Das VlshwaVIdyalaya (Central Universit Koi, llap hhattisgar. ’ Petitioner in Writ Petition .. 5050/2009 VS. of NOVEMBER, 2009 PASSED ‘BY THE LEARNED SINGLE i JUDGEIIN W.P(C) No. 5050/2009 IN CASE OF LAKSHMAN CHA TUR VEDI - VS- CHHA TTISGARH LOK A YOG‘ H E > N y), ‘ n Bsur (Ch) WP(C) No. WWW “AT ”MS? R' Division Bunch ‘ Hon bk 5hr. Prasham Kumar Mishra Hon ble Shrl I M Quédus: q Wm'f Appeal No.24. OF 2010 ‘ ,Appdlan'r Lakshman Cha‘rurvedh ' J \ § Vs C,hha+1'i,s9arh Lok Ayofg, Raipur. Raspond‘om' « Presen‘t j Mr SanJay K Agarwal Advoca‘re for The appeUam Mr Sumesh BaJaJ, Advocate for the responder” out. JqgeMENT (Passed on 29'“ March 2010)~ LM, Qudd‘usli; J.- 1, Heard 2 This wrH appeal has been fll¢d agamsf the lmpugnzd order dafed 17 11 2009 passed by The learned Smgle Judge m W P’ (c) No 5050/09 which was rela'l’ed fo non supply of The documenfs m fhe proceedings pendmg before the Lok Ayog 3. Though The learned Smgle Judge while dlsposmg of 1’he wrrr pe'rmon passed an order +ha'r The peTTTIoner Is noT enTiTled ’ for copy of The documenTs annexed wlTh The complamT or eVIdence collecTed by The Lok Ayog durmg mvesTlgaTlon m connechon with The sand complamT and he shall be afforded“ reasonable opporTumTy for fllmg reply To The show cause as well as he shall be allowed mspecTIon of The record buT The learned counsel appearing for The respondenT-Lok Ayog submITs ThaT copies of documenTs along wrl'h The complamT have been supplied To The peTITIoner as he did noT make any requesT- for, inspechon, and .Thenefore,, ”was deemed ,Towsupply all ‘The copies .ilof, docuvhenTs which were annexed wiTh The complainT To \ThepeTiTioner. I ma -2- . In viewmof ‘rhe above, fhqnc nmqing naming toJae gdjudicatgd' ~. in fhis writappeal._ HpWeve’r, we fggl‘ {thaidur‘mg The ‘CburSG' ‘pf/ enquiry before— +he ‘Lok. Ayog; J’he Cgurf shohld no} innrferhehor monnor th'e‘p‘rocae‘djngs andJf ,gnyVugpingokn isjm madé by The Lok Ayog and “fhe Governmenf‘accepf: vrhgdqm'g and further fakes any nc'hon by which the petitioner feels‘m, aggrieved rr us always open for hlmlt Ljl'ake recnurse 9f law Therefore . , m such Asntuntlpn. qppmaehmgx,thewcggrtwbyjwag ‘ ‘ wrirpetirion ai an earliere,§ta,9ee.w,ou.ld.bbe,q;\pre.metuine;s;fqge. . 5. The writ appeal is disppsed Qf‘aecordingly. Sci/- ¢ " Prashant Kumar‘MiShra Judge - ; sw. : J Judge ' 7 ‘L 3/ ‘ i IMQudducl / '/ e " w W /