Non Aided Private College Professors Union v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
@ WW mm?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
IUDICATURE : CG :
BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No :
13/9 OF PETITIONERS :
"an Aided Private College Professors Union (1'1? W W W WW was Kara) Through:
The President syn/um?) FE?
office at : r/ o Shri Subir Sen 17/361, Sarju Bagicha Masanganj -- Bilaspur CG - VERSUS - RESPONDENTS :
1".
State of Chhattisgarh my The Secretary Chhattisgarh Department of Higher Education Manixalaya': Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur: PS-Rakhi, Raipur CG 2.
f The Collector: Bi1aspur Bilaspur CG 3.
The Principal D.P. Vipra College, Old High Court Road, Bilaspur PS-City Kotwali, Bilaspur CG /', / 4'
Snatak Mahavidyalaya Shikshan Samiti Through : The Chairman Snatak Mahavidyalaya Shikshan Sa'mjti D'P.Vipra College: Old High Court Road, Bilaspur. PS«City Kotwali.
Bilaspur CG WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The Petitioner respectfully submits asunder JaeV
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDRA MOI-IAN SHRIVASTAVA Writ Petition (Cl No.1819 of 2013 PETITIONER Non-Aided Private College Professors Union
Versus
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
M ¢ , Appearance:
"In Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. A.G. for the State/respondents No. 1 85 2.
None appears for respondent No.3 despite service of notice. Shri Sudeep Agrawal and Shri Vivek Chopda, counsel respondent No.4 (proceeded ex parte).
Shri B.D. Guru, counsel for the intervener.
ORAL -ORDER (Passed on 2nd Februaly, 2015) Heard on admission.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayed quashing letter dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure P-l) issued by the State Govt.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the had issued a direction on 20th September, 2013 (Annexure P-4) directing the Collector to register offence against those who were found guilty in an inquiry made under the direction of the Govt. He submits that thereafter, the Collector directed the Principal to submit before S.H.O.
on 23rd October, 2013.
However, thereafter, the State Govt. again issued impugned order
dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure P-l), directing the Collector not lodge FIR till the Shikshan Samiti is afforded an opportunity hearing.
. Submission of learned counsel is that such direction could not be issued by the State Govt. not to lodge FIR. He submits that a detailed inquiry was conducted and certain persons were found guilty and, therefore, on that basis, the State Govt. had issued a direction on 20th September, 2013 for lodging report in the police station. Once a report was submitted in the police station by the Principal on the direction of the Collector, the State Govt. could not have interfered in the matter and defer lodging of report. Relinace has been place in the case of State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Vs.
Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan and anotherl.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the .
State Govt. had also issued a direction to lodge. FIR, but when the Govt. received representation from Shikshan Sarniti, it thought it proper not proceed in matter till version Shikshan Samiti is considered and it was in that spirit that order dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure P-l) was issued. He submits that if a been submitted in police station, it is concerned police authority to proceed or not to proceed in the matter .
. lt appears that earlier the State Govt. had directed the Collector to take action and lodge FIR on the basis of certain inquiry held and report submitted. Later on, the concerned Shikshan Samiti had submitted representation requesting consider their representation before giving effect to the direction of lodging FIR.
Apparently, in view of this, proceeded to pass order dated 31.10.2013. The order shows that the State Govt. issued a direction to the Collector not to proceed M '(2om 1 scc 577
W3 With FIR till the Shikshan Samiti is afforded an opportunity hearing.
.Be that as it may, in meantime, on basis instructions Collector, Principal submitted report/complaint in police station.
Therefore, it is police authority take action in accordance with law.
This petition is only confined against the order passed by the There is no relief sought againstethe police officials register FIR.
The otherwise also remedy under Section of the Cr.P.C., if according petitioner, 'i), police is not registering FIR for any reason. . At this stage, no further orders are required to be passed in the matter.
It is needles observe that if any been submitted in the police station, it is open for the police authority to act in accordance with law.
. With the aforesaid observations, petition is finally disposed off.
Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Pr aveen