Jeevan Muskan Samajik Seva Sanstha, Geedam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 754 of 2020 Jeevan Muskan Samajik Seva Sanstha, Geedam Civil And Revenue District South Baster Dantewada, Chhattisgarh President Shri Trilok Surana, Through Manish Kumar Pande S/o Shri Anant Prasad Pande, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Quarter No. 275/1, Behind Of Civil Court, Near Shiv Mandir, Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, Civil And Revenue District Koria, Chhattisgarh. (Power Of Attorney Holder), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Cum Chief Executive Officer (Campa) Atal Nagar, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Conservator Of Forest Forest Circle Jagdalpur, Civil And Revenue, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

5. The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Sukama, Civil And Revenue District Sukama, Chhattisgarh

6. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer Forest Sub Division Dornapal, Civil And Revenue District Sukama, Chhattisgarh

7. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer Forest Sub Division Tongpal , Civil And Revenue District Sukama Chhattisgarh

8. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer Forest Sub Division Konta , Civil And Revenue District Sukama Chhattisgarh

9. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer Forest Sub Division Sukama, Civil And Revenue District Sukama Chhattisgarh 10.The Forest Range Officer Forest Range Dornapal , Civil And Revenue District Sukama Chhattisgarh 11.The Forest Range Officer Forest Range Tongpal, Civil And Revenue District Sukama Chhattisgarh

12.The Forest Range Officer Forest Range Konta , Civil And Revenue District Sukama Chhattisgar 13.The Forest Range Officer Forest Range Sukama, Civil And Revenue District Sukama Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For State :

Mr. Somkant Verma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 25/02/2020

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-1 dated 13.09.2019 whereby the respondents have cancelled the work order issued to the petitioner on 07.02.2018 and have also rejected the claim of the petitioner seeking for the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner for the alleged training programmes conducted by the petitioner for mushroom cultivation , vermiculture & Vermicomposting and organic grower.

2. State counsel at this juncture submits that since there is a specific order by this Court cancelling the work order and rejecting the claim of the petitioner the entire claim of the petitioner or the relief sought for by the petitioner becomes disputed. Moreover, disputed question involved in the present writ petition can be decided only by recording of evidences on either side and which perhaps would not be permissible exercising the writ jurisdiction by this Court. Thus, prayed for rejection of the writ petition.

3. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and particularly considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as by the State counsel, moreover, taking into consideration the contents of Annexure P-1 dated 13.09.2019 whereby the

respondent authorities have doubted the execution of the work of the petitioner and have thus canceled the work order and also the claim put forth by the petitioner, this in the opinion of this Court is a clear disputed fact and it would require evidences for reaching to a conclusion whether action on the part of the respondents was proper, legal and justified.

4. In view of the disputed question of facts involved in the case, this Court is of the opinion that writ petition would not be maintainable. Reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the concerned Court, the writ petition stands rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit