Vee Realties India Limited And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ANR.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
AT BILASPUR W.P. C No.
C 7/»12014 ------------- Vee-Realties India Limited "Shubham"
House No.
Ward No.
39, Riddhi Siddhi,Colony Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh-491441 Through its director Buddhadas Ramteke aged 33 years S/o.
Sh.
Premdas Ramteke, R/o.
"Premfule"
Niwas in front Dhwani apartment sister Coiony, \ Naginabag Ward, Chandrapur, '
P.S. & Post. Chandrgapur, Civil & Revenue District.Chandrapur, Maharashtra.
Kamlesh Verma aged 39 years Sh.
Paltan Ram Verma , R/o.
H.
No.
2, Riddhi Siddhi Colony Dongargaon Road.
Rajnandgaon.
P.S. & Post. Rajnandgaon, Civit & Revenue District.
Rajnandgaon, C.G.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS 1] State Chhattisgarh Through Home Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, P.S. & Post.
Naya Raipur, Civii & Revenue District.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2] Additional Superintendent Police, Rajnandgaon, P.S. & Post.
Rajnandgaon, Civil Revenue District.
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
\k\W V, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.2192 OF 2014 Vee-Realties India Limited & Another
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Another RESPONDENTS Post for pronouncement of orders on the I g'h'day of January, 201 5 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR \'\\x V\ WRIT PETITION (C) NO.2192 OF 2014 Vee-Realties lndia Limited &Another
Versus
RESPON'DENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Present:- Shri S.S.
Mishra Shri R.K.
Parashar, Advocates for petitioners.
Shri Adiraj Surana, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State.
O R D E R
(Passed on this i gA"day of January, 2015) Heard learned counsei for the parties.
1.
Petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to accept the undertaking made by the petitioner No.1, allow them to comply with the same and prevent the respondents from interfering with smooth functioning petitioner No.1 company.
A prayer has also been made to prevent the respondents from freezing back accounts, attach properties etc.
of the petitioner No.1 company and direct local provide adequate security to the petitioner No.2.
2.
Petitioner No.1 is a reality company whereas the petitioner No.2 is the proprietor/Director of the said company.
The petitioners allegedly allured the customers inviting them to invest money in the company with the assurance to return the appreciated value of the invested amount.
3.
An FIR (First Information Report), on crime No.411/14, was filed against the petitioner company with the Basantpur Police Station of
/ Rajnandgaon District, aHeging commission offence punishable under Section 420 of the indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') at the instance of the complainant namely; Moreswar Rajgire alleging that company has obtained payments in installments total Rs.4.80 lacs, but the said amount is not returned.
Another FIR, on crime No.418/14, has been registered in the same police station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 & 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC at the instance of the complainant namely; Arjunram Verma, alleging cheating to the tune of Rs,27.00 lacs.
ln yet another FIR, bearing crime No'150/14, registered at Police Station Gandai of Rajnandgaon District for offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, at the instance of Atmaram Verma, similar allegations have been made.
lt has been argued by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that local is harassing petitioners and a panic has been created in area tarnishing image company, therefore; the respondents deserve be commanded allow the petitioners to run their company smoothly. lt appears for quashing of FIR Nos.411/14 & 418/14 petitions under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been filed by one Kamlesh Verma before this Court bearing Cr.M.P.
Nos.865 and said petitions are pending consideration before this Court.
The petitioner has also been granted bail by the Sessions Court, Rajnandgaon,
\\\x§v Merely because Iocal convened a press conference, it cannot be said that the functioning of the company is hindered. if the bank accounts have been freezed, the remedy for the petitioner lies to approach the criminal Court and seek remedy in accordance with law.
No order has been annexed nor any such order has been assailed wherein bank accounts have been directed be freezed.
ln the absence of any specific prayer with respect to any particular order or conduct or action of the respondents by which the petitioner is aggrieved, a blanket writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition cannot be issued.
10.
lt is the settled law that a statutory authority cannot be restrained by issuing a writ of mandamus to carry on their statutory work or to act contrary law.
(See:
Union of India and Another v.
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. LtdJ).
11.
lf an order is passed and a specific challenge is thrown, the same shall be decided within the four corners of the legal provisions, but a blanket prohibition cannot be issued.
12.
ln the opinion of this Court, the writ petition is misconceived.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gowri l (1 996) 4 SCC 453