Peiiéiamf Va‘wg The State of Chhattiagarh, Through the Direetor, Schoc! Educatien, Raipur! District Raipur {Chhattisgarm The ‘ rinsipat, Government Shringi Rishi Higher Secondary $chaai {Boys}, Nagri, Dhamtari, DIS‘iYic’i Dhamiari (CG) The Cailectcr (Cammaint Seciien}, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhaitisgarm The Chief Executive Officer, Ziia Panchayat, Dhamiari, Di$trict Dhamtari (C.G.) The Bicok Education Officer, Schedule Tribai Biock — Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhaitisgarh) The: A$sistant Ccmmissionen Department of Weifare of Scheduied Tribe, Dhamtari, Dish. , Dhamtari (Chhatiiegarh) The Coiiecter (Schedule Tribe Weifare Department), Dhamtari District Dhamiari (ce) RESPQNQENEE; 1 . @ Yogesh Kumar Jain, aged abaut 40 years; $on of me Ratari La? Jain, re$ident a? near Gandhi Chowk. Nagfi, Dhamiari, District Dhamiari {Chhat%§sgarh). HEGH CQURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BELASPUR DEWSEON BENQH CQRI-XM: HGNaELE SHRI RAJEEV GijPTA, CJ. HGN’BLE SHR! $$NIL KHMAR SENHA. J. Writ §e€i€§en {93L} N0. @255 a? 2§@? L) @ Writ Petitian under Articga 226 of the Canstitutkm at lndia E3m$ent Shri GS. AgrawaL learned Senior counsei with Shri KR. Nair, iearned for the petitioner. $hr§ MRS. Bhetia, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5 to 7. ORDER (2am March, 2093) The foirowing order of the Court was paesed by Rageev Gupta, SJ. Heard learned counsei fer the parties. 2. The petitioner claEmEng himee!€ to be a pubttc spirited pereon has tiled this writ petition, etyled as ‘Public interest Litigation’ for the fotlowing reliefs :-- “7.1 That, the petitioner ' above named most respeottuily prays to this Hon’ble Court to oali for entire records for its kind perusal. 7.2 That the respondents No.1, 3, 4 8: 5 be directed by issuing a writ, mandating them that they should take appropriate action against the respondent No.2. 7.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon’bte Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner, in substance, ie seeking a direction to respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 to take appropriate action against respondent No.2 for the aiieged irregularities said to have been committed by him. @ 4. For ascertaining the correctnegs of the alkegatians made by the petitioner in the writ petition against respondent No.2, a ‘Fact Finding Enquiry’ would be necessary. Such a ‘Fact Finding Enquiry“ can be better conducted by the ‘Lek Aayog’, who has its own investigation wing. 5. in this View of the matter, we are of the opinion that it wouid be appropriate tor the petitioner to approach the ‘Lok Aayog’ for the redreesai of his grievances proiected in the writ petition. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. ?. The security amount of Rs.5,0GQ/_ deposited by the nimmi petitioner be refunded to him. i Sd/- Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Justice Judge