1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 629 of 2025 1 - Jitendra Sen @ Jitu Sen S/o Baji Ram Sen, Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Gariyaband, Tahsil And District-Gariyaband (C.G.) .. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Senani District Nagar Sena, Fire And Emergency Services District Gariyaband (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission, Through Secretary C.G. State Scheduled Tribe Commission, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Lok Singh Kanwar, S/o Chain Singh Kanwar, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bhunjiyamuda, Police Station Piperchhecdi, Tahsil And District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mohd. Afroz Athar, Advocate For State :- Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L. For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. R.K. Bhagat, Advocate (On advance copy) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order On Board 23.01.2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) By issuing appropriate writ or direction kindly quash the proceeding initiation by CG State Scheduled Tribe Commission, Raipur (Commission) in Case No. 142/2024 which has been registered on the private complaint of individual nature lodged by the Respondent No.3. 10.2) Pass any other order as he Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 28.11.2024 has been issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 and according to him, the said respondent is not the competent authority to issue such notice to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that only the notice has been issued to the petitioner and no order whatsoever has been passed against the petitioner. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents annexed with the petitioner, it appears that since only notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has duly replied to the same, therefore, the future apprehension of passing any order against the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. However, if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate 3 application along with relevant documents before the appropriate forum. 5. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition stands disposed off. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha