Ramprasad v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(Cr.) No. 60 of 2017

1. Ramprasad, S/o. Late Devsharan, aged about 44 years, R/o. VillageSunderpur, Village-Panchayat, Katkona, Civil and Revenue District - Koriya (C.G.) ----Petitioner

Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., through : Its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Chief General Manager, West Chirmiri, Post Poundi, Civil and Revenue District - Koriya (C.G.).

3. Sub-Area Manager, N.C.P.H. Colliery, Post N.C.P.H. (Haldibadi), Civil and Revenue District - Koriya (C.G.).

4. Director Personal, S.E.C.L., Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.).

5. Coal Managing Director, S.E.C.L., Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.).

6. Shiv Prasad, S/o. Devsharan, aged about 42 years, R/o. Sundarpur, Village-Panchayat Kathkona, Post Dewadand, Police Station - Khadgawa, District - Koriya (C.G.).

7. State of Chhattisgarh, through : The Station House Officer, Police Station - Chirmiri, District - Koriya (C.G.0 ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Vivke Chopda, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 16/02/2017 1.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief:- "10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.7 not to harass petitioner on the basis of complaint made by respondent No.6.

Page No.2 10.2 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working in SECL from 02.10.1989 and the respondent No.6, Shiv Prasad is brother of the petitioner and is claiming that the petitioner is not Ram Prasad and false personification has been made and different reports were made to harass the petitioner. Therefore, direction may be issued not to harass the petitioner on the basis of complaints made to the police.

3.

Perusal of the documents and considering the relief claimed, this Court is unable to understand the nature of relief claimed as it appears that dispute is in between two brothers over false personification. In facts of case, the Court can not injunct any person by way of this writ petition passing a blanket stay by passing the order like nature not to harass anyone as it may arrest even any enquiry. The petitioner if is aggrieved may resort the other remedy available to him under the law for establish his identity, if so advised.

4.

Accordingly, the petition devoid of any force is dismissed at admission stage itself.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram