High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6004/2019rejected

Manmath Dhali v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-08-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6004 of 2019 Manmath Dhali S/o Shri Manoranjan Dhali Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 14, P.V. 116, Pakhanjur, Uttar Bastar, Kanker Tehsil And DistrictKanker (Chhattisgarh)- 494776, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secondary, Ministry Of Health, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Collectrate Compound, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer North Baster, District-Kanker (Chhattisgarh) - 494334, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Coordinator State Health Service, Kalibadi Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Block Health Officer Koyla Bada, North Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh) - 492001, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

6. Executive Director State Healt Training Center Building Kalibadi Raipur (Chhattisgarh)- 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

7. District Coordinator North Bastar, District Kanker (Chhsttisgarh) 494334, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate For State :

Ms. Akansha Jain, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13/08/2019

1. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is to set aside the order passed by the respondents and also for further direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry.

2. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that writ petition as such may not be sustainable for the reason that no specific order is under challenge in the present writ petition. The impugned order (Annexure P-1) & (Annexure P-2) are internal correspondences made between the authorities of the State Government. Unless, there is an order specifically passed against the petitioner which would be construed as a cause of action which could be challenged, the writ petition as such may not be maintainable.

3. Plain reading of the Annexure P-1 only reflects that there was some financial irregularities committed by the petitioner and which the authorities have been asked to take appropriate steps by reporting the matter to the concerned Police Station. The petitioner as such could not have filed a writ petition under the service roster for challenging the same.

4. Reserving the right of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies at the appropriate stage against appropriate action which the respondents take, the present writ petition is rejected as not maintainable.

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit