Kuldeep Nirala v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 1697 of 2020 Kuldeep Nirala S/o Shri Jhaduram Nirala Aged About 35 Years Director Division Member At Prathmic Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samity Maryadit Salaunikala, District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, (C.G.). ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Panjiyak Sahkari Sanshthay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)

2. Collector Baloda Bazar Bhatapara District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, (C.G.).

3. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit Head Office Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Deputy Registrar Sahkari Sansthay Baloda Bazar District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, (C.G.).

5. Branch Manager District Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bhatgaon, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, (C.G.).

6. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaigarh, District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, (C.G.).

7. Manger Prathmic Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samity Maryadit Salaunikala District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, (C.G.).

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 26.08.2020 1.

The only grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that the petitioner has repeatedly been approaching the respondent authorities in respect of the misappropriation of the funds to the tune of more than Rs.1.65 Crores in the illegal purchase of paddy during he period 2015-16.

2.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that as of now his grievance would be redressed if the respondent No.2 is directed to look into the complaint that the petitioner has made and to take an appropriate decision on the same.

-23.

The said limited relief sought for by the petitioner is not opposed by the State counsel.

4.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation/complaint of the petitioner in accordance with law at the earliest. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh complaint also supported with all relevant documents and records, if he so wants.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 453 of 2020

1. Kuldeep Nirala, S/o Late Shri Jhaduram Nirala, Aged About 35 Years, Director Division Member At Prathmic Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samity Maryadit Salaunikala, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Panjiyak Sahkari Sanshthay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit Head Office Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Deputy Registrar, Sahkari Sansthay Baloda Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

5. Branch Manager, District Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bhatgaon, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

6. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaigarh, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

7. Manager Prathmic Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samity Maryadit Salaunikala, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh -----Respondents For Applicant :

Mr. Lavkush K. Sahu, Advocate For State :

Mr. Raghvendra Verma, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05.10.2020

1. The present MCC has been filed seeking for modification of the Order dated 26.08.2020 passed in WPC No. 1697 of 2020.

-22. The modification sought for is to the extent that a mistake on account of the counsel for the petitioner/applicant in wrongly mentioning the period in the Writ Petition as 2015-16 whereas it ought to have been 2013-2014. According to the petitioner it was an error on his part while preparing the petition and prays for a permission to amend the petition and also prays for the modification of the order of this Court.

3. The said modification sought for is not opposed by the State counsel.

4. The counsel for the petitioner/applicant is permitted to amend the writ petition to the aforesaid extent during the course of the day itself.

5. On perusal of records, the present MCC stands allowed and the order dated 26.08.2020 passed in WPC No. 1697 of 2020 stands modified to the extent that in paragraph, the period shall be read as "20132014" instead of "2015-16".

6. With the aforesaid modification, the present MCC stands allowed and disposed off. Let a copy of this Order be made a part of record of WPC No. 1697 of 2020.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul