1 2025:CGHC:49158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5048 of 2025 1 - Hirendra Sahu S/o Shri Chetan Das Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Khoratola, Post- Ranutola, Tehsil- Chhuria, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Cooperative Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Deputy Registrar Cooperative Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Collector Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Secretary State Cooperative, Election Commission, Raipur,division - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Shri Dhananjay Sahu S/o Shri Dwarkadas Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Jyoshilmath Tehsil- Chhuria, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Mr. Malay Shrivastava along with Ms. Sakshi Chhabra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order/ communication dated 08.09.2025 2 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. Dy. Registrar Co-operative, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) being laid down without reasoning, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to pass a reasoned order in respect of termination/removal of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsels for the petitioner submits that the present petition is being preferred against the communication/order dated 08.09.2025 whereby the respondent no. 2- Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) has removed the petitioner from his post of authorized officer. 3. At the outset, learned State counsel and counsel for respondent no. 4 raised an objection to the maintainability of the petition and contended that order was passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Co- operative Rajnandgaon (C.G.) but the petitioner has not impleaded him as a party in the present petition. 4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this is a bonafide mistake and prays to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties on maintainability and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. As prayed, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh duly constituted petition. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima