Dismissed

Sudharma Seva Samiti v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Oct 2012WPC/4411/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in a Writ Petition challenging the refusal of certain inquiries. The court held the cause title defective due to inclusion of 'not known' for males and directed correction within two weeks, otherwise dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to correct the cause title by substituting appropriate names within two weeks, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed.

Sudharma Seva Samiti Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

c^-

¶3

BEEORS THE^HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF GHI-IATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION fC.) No. ^Lf} f /2011

¶5

Petitioner Sudharma Seva Samiti, Sekharpur, Tah. Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) through - Its Director, Santosh Babaji, S/o.Tapsi aafealj.i, ageet a!tocff 38^ years, Sskhsi-pa^r, Ta'h. Patthalgaoft, OfeS. Jasilpur (C.G.)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

ResDondents 1.'^' State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Ratpur (CG)

¶8

Vl
. ^^ y/'/^ ./r<br>^vyW^
^/^^
<t.- ' .
-?

¶9

Collector, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. ^ Collector, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.)

¶10

^' PeFriyeganaNwcteshakCuj'ri Eieputy Caitector, loigarh (JC.G.)

¶11

r Btoek EctBcaAiw Qffrcer, Block - Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.)

¶12

^ Smt. Jemal Lakda, aged about 32 W/o Not known, Gram

¶13

years Panchayat -Ghoteng, Post Gholeng, Tahsil & Distt. Jashpur (C.G.)

¶14

T. Smt. Perpetua Minj, aged about 35 W/o. Not known, Gram

¶15

years, Panchayat -Gholeng,, Post Gh&leng,,. Tahsil & Distt. Jasfepur (C.G.)

¶16

tfe5'.. . ^.v%<br>S- i U. ] e |

¶17

^ Snit. Emakaieta Lakda, aged afe@ut 35 years, W/o. Not known, Grarn Panchayat -Gholeng, Post Gholeng, Tahsil & Distt. Jashpur (C.G.)

¶18

Smt. Anjana-Bakhla, aged about 35 years, W/o. Not known, Village & Post - Devidargaon, Tah & Distt. Jashpur (C.G.)

^ia"SB<iu,

^' 10. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat - ^ Lokhandi, Tah. & Distt. Jashpur (CG)

¶24

WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTIGLE 226 OF THE

¶25

¶26

'iSl-PC—78

¶27

.T^ .^-RTcffT. t?Tfr(PT'i.'. |s|(yiiy'Tr

lne(c}^n

TiTTi^r •is^rrai 21)

	W^T tRR? ('^:3	^T)
31R"T3T'•^IRi ^Sff STT^T^.^ich		'•WvPiT-' •RTCR^i
	(S.B: Hon'bleShri Satish K.A l.10.2012! Shri A.N.Bhakta.Advo	^nihotri, J.)
	Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, State/respondent No. 1 to 5.	peputy Advocate General for the j
	Shri S.V.Purohit, Advoc	jatefortherespondent No. 9.
	!n the cause titie, it is have been arrayed, showing This is derogatory and dispa the compiete details of ti^ petitionereither makes aliegs Thus, the Registry is d the name of the father an
	substituted by 'not known'	'unknown' or 'not known to the
	Court of Chhattisgarh Rutes, aisotheformat iscausetitle, ai! the parties inciuding the d petitioner', ^{as the requirem^}	^{nt under the}proyisions ^{of the High} 2007 (for shon the Rules, 2007) and including full and complete address of itailsofthe Police Station, PostOffice

¶32

3^ST -^WW^, (STfl'M'liS, fsl^l'H'K

MIMdl tb^ldb

^//./1

an^r Tisra; (ll?ifl«<<ff)

¶37

3iI^5(?RIK-V* gsiTCT^ff ai-qiaT		'..T^fepih 41*1rif'3feetttesTr ^) 3Ssn 3W^V
	narr sart and Posta! Index Number and petitioner does not know the respondents/petitioners, the known', ^'unknown'or ^'notknowit Ruies, 2007 and in the format, th^ petitioners as well as particulars In view of the above, the p address ofthe respondent No. failing which the petition shali stai	A copy of this order be General, the President, C.G. H!^ President, Chhattisgarh State BaF
Amrs ^^' v^ •i^-'^'ff^}!-^.{ /. •<-•..:-.;^-''.•^^R^ .•^	rii^:^iT^—rs4-^--i/2(li2--!.59,0<)H.	Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge

Sudharma Seva Samiti v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudharma Seva Samiti v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ketaki Bai and Ors. Vs the D.M.,M.P.Vanvikas Nigam Ltd.andORS

Sanju @Prannath Tripathi Vs State and Ors.

Bhilai Mahila Samaj Vs Union of India and Others

Prabhat Kumar Sinha Vs Life Insurance Cor. of India and Ors.

Snatak Mahavidyalaya Shikshan and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Agrawal Vs Indian Oil Coporation Ltd. and Ors.