Disposed

Sayyed Gaffar Ali v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Chhattisgarh HC27 Jul 2018WPS/1409/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition fearing recovery based on an unsolicited communication. The High Court held that since there was no decision to recover at that stage, the petition is disposed of with liberty to revive if a recovery notice is issued.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to revive if a recovery notice is given by the respondent.

Sayyed Gaffar Ali Vs Chhattisgarh… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

AFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Writ Petition (S) No. 1409 of 2018

¶4

Sayyed Gaffar Ali S/o Late Shri Mohammad Ali Aged About 50 Years R/o 239, Kelabadi Ward No. 41, Near Nuri Masjid, Police Station City Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

Wajid Ali S/o Shri Bahid Ali Aged About 51 Years R/o Kelabadi Ward No. 41, Police Station City Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Mukesh Sharma S/o Late Shri R.S. Sharma, Aged About 59 Years R/o Anand Vihar Phase No. 03, Quarter No. B 13, Ward No. 52, Near R.K. Gym Borsi, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Indrajeet Singh S/o Shri Ram Kripal Singh, Aged About 62 Years R/o Vikas Nagar, Ward No. 14, Ram Nagar Muktidham, Post Supela, Bhilai Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Satish Chandra Sharma S/o Late Shri Tek Chandra Sharma, Aged About 59 Years R/o Ward No. 36 Near Khursipar, Near Post Office, Bhilai 12, Police Station Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Veer Singh S/o Shri Vichittar Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Dadar, Post Janjgiri, Bmy Charoda, Bhilai Police Station Bhilai Charoda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Lacchu Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Jhadi Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o 78 Satnam Nagar, New Khursipara, Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Khedu Ram Soni S/o Late Shri Hori Lal Soni, Aged About 59 Years C/o Sayyed Gaffar Ali, 239, Kelabadi Ward No. 41, Near Nuri Masjid Police Station City Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Sangam Lal Mishra S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Mishra Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 15 Iti Bhawan, Nagar Panchayat Berla, Berla Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

10.Khilawan Sahu S/o Shri Pardeshi Ram Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village And Post Ahivara, Ward No. 4, Sanjay Nagar, Police Station Naudaui, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Shiv Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shri Vishnu Prasad Pandey Aged About 50 Years R/o Street No. 3, Behind Bunkar Sangh, Santrabadi, Durg Police Station City Kotwali, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

12.Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Raja Ram Tiwari Aged About 55 Years R/o Vijay Nagar Bank Colony (Ahead Guru Kripa Traders) Ward No. 12, Police Station City Kotwali Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Sumati Singh S/o Late Shri KOK Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Near Nagar Panchayat Office, Gunderdehi, Balod, Police Station Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

14.Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri G.P. Sharma, Aged About 61 Years R/o Quarter No. 6 A, Street No. 33, Sector 07, Bhilai Nagar, Police Station Bhilai,

¶18

¶19

District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

---- Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Through Managing Director, Head Office Shastri Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Director Local Fund, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

Recovery Officer, Department Of Finance Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

---- Respondents

¶26

For Petitioner : Shri KPS Gandhi, Advocate

¶27

For Respondent No.1 : Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate

¶28

For Respondents No. 2 and 3 : Shri R.K. Gupta, Deputy Advocate General

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta

¶30

Order On Board

¶31

27.07.2018

¶32

At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioners have filed this petition on an apprehension that respondent would be proceeding to make any recovery against the petitioners on the basis of communication dated 19.7.2017 (Annexure P-1), which is unfounded.

¶33

In the communication of the State Government, there is no direction for making any recovery and the respondent No.1 has also not taken any such decision to make any recovery against the petitioners.

¶34

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.1, petition of the petitioners appears to be on apprehension of recovery though there is no decision taken by respondent No.1 to order any recovery against the petitioners. Therefore, at this stage, the petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioners to revive in

¶35

¶36

case any recovery notice is given to the petitioners by respondent

¶37

No.1.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Sharad Kumar Gupta) JUDGE

¶40

kishore

Sayyed Gaffar Ali v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Gaffar Ali v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

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

Chhatt Lal Bhaskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rath Ram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kamal Narayan Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Nand Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uttam Bangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhupendra Kumar Shriwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh