Petitioner challenged an order denying a permit via writ petition. The High Court found the petitioner admitted the permit was granted and no fundamental right was infringed, disposing the petition.
Writ Petition disposed of; Petitioner at liberty to pursue administrative remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2074 OF 2023
1. Sukhlal Dewangan, S/o Dineshwar Ram, aged about 39 years, District President, International Human Rights Association, District Surguja, Resident of Ward No.4, New Mines Colony, Quarter No.632, Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, School Education Department, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, District Surajpur (C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Adv. For Respondent-State : Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Adv.
_______________________________________________________ Hon’ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
[05/05/2023]
1. Taking into consideration the pleadings in the Writ Petition, it clearly reflects that no right of the Petitioner much less the fundamental right of the Petitioner seems to have been infringed by any of the acts of the Respondents in the instant case.
2. On a query being put to learned Counsel for Petitioner, he candidly accepts the fact that the Petitioner has moved an application for permission and the same has been accepted and he has been granted permission. This, all the more, forces this Court in declining to entertain the present Writ Petition.
3. The Writ Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. However, the Petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his remedies on administrative side with the Respondents.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE
sharad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's fundamental rights were infringed by the respondents.
Sukhlal Dewangan
State of Chhattisgarh
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
