Yashwant Sahu v. Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Raipur

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No.

Yashwant Sahu S/o Late Gendram Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o House No. F/811, Sector-1, Agroha Marg, Mahadevghat Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Raipur Through Its Registrar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Executive Engineer Office Of Superintendent, Physical Plant, Indira Gandhi Agriculture University, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Director Of Research Services Cum Chairman Enquiry Committee Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. M/s Subhakriti, Jawahar Nagar, Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 02/12/2019

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1 dated 11.01.2019 passed by the respondent No.1. Vide the impugned order the respondent No.1 has quashed the order passed by the petitioner dated 26.10.2018 and have granted permission to the respondent No.4 for the purpose of construction of 1300 Seater Auditorium Building.

2. At the outset, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not have any locus to file the present writ petition. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent No.1/University. The petitioner in the capacity of an employee/officer of the respondent No.1/University had once taken some decision against the respondent No.4, who

was a contractor, who had participated in some tender proceedings, so far as construction of a 1300 Seater Auditorium Building.

3. The petitioner stood retired from service on 31.10.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner is not directly or indirectly associated with the respondent No.1/University. The respondents subsequently reconsidered the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the University on an earlier occasion and have now passed Annexure P/1 recalling the order dated 26.10.2018 and permitting the petitioner respondent No.4 to construct the 1300 Seater Auditorium Building in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties.

4. By issuance of Annexure P/1 dated 11.01.2019, none of the personal rights of the petitioner is getting infringed in any manner. The impugned order also does not have an adverse impact on any of the rights of the petitioner.

5. It is settled position of law that for a person to approach the writ Court the foremost ground available for him is to establish the infringement of any of his rights. In the instant case, none of the personal rights of the petitioner seems to have been infringed by the order of the respondent No.1/University vide Annexure P/1 dated 11.01.2019.

6. Given the said facts, this Court does not find the petitioner to have the locus to file the present writ petition. The writ petition therefore, fails and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved