Chattisgarh High Court
Rajkumar Mishra, Petitioner In Person vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2017
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 1857 of 2017
Rajkumar Mishra, Petitioner In Person S/o Ganesh Prasad
Mishra Aged About 46 Years R/o Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Police
Station - Chirmiri Tahsil - Khandwa District - Koriya
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Sub Divisonal ( Certifing ) Khadgawa - Chirmiri District - Koriya
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar Mishra, in person For Respondents/State : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede, G.A. Order On Board 25/07/2017 (1) The petitioner has obtained certain information with regard to caste of one Usha Kumari, daughter of Ramswaroop Das, resident of Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Koria under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 31.1.2017 and, thereafter filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Officer (Certification) Khadgawan, District Chirmiri for taking action against the persons, clerks, Advocates involved in issuance of the false caste certificate under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code on 04.03.2017. Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed impleading State of Chhattisgarh and S.D.O. (Certification) as a party respondents, in which, he has prayed that respondents be directed to act on his complaint filed before the respondent No. 2; and further prayed that the forged caste certificate 2 issued from the office of respondent No. 2 be also enquired and FIR be lodged.
(2) The petitioner has appeared in person and argued his matter and reiterated the prayer made in the writ petition.
(3) I have heard petitioner in person. (4) It appears from the perusal of the record that the petitioner is
not the aggrieved person so far as caste of Usha Kumari is concerned. He has no service or other grievance in issuance of caste certificate in favour of Usha Kumari; and Usha Kumari has not been impleaded in the writ petition as party respondent. So, he is not entitled for issuance of writ of mandamous directing action on his complaint, which is absolutely vague. Last paragraph of the complaint, which has been made by the petitioner vide Annexure P-3, states as under:-
"vr% vki vius inh; drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djrs gq, Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 375 ds vuqlkj] fpjfejh iqfyl dks funsZ'k nsa fd mDr QthZokM+s esa 'kkfey O;fDr;ksa] vf/koDrkvksa vkSj DyZdksa ds fo:) Hkknala dh /kkjk 420] 465] 467]468 rFkk 471 ds laKs; vkijk/k ds laca/k esa ekuuh; lokZsP; U;k;ky; ds fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds vuq:i f'kdk;r izkIr gksus ds 7 fnuksa ds Hkhrj ,QvkbZvkj ntZ djuk lqfu'fpr djsa A"
(5) It is absolutely general in nature and give no detail about the complainat, the petitioner has prayed following reliefs in the instant writ petition.
"10.1 ;g fd QthZ tkfr izek.k i= cukus ds laca/k esa esjs f'kdk;r ij mRrjoknhx.k dks le; lhek ds Hkhrj dk;Zokgh 3 djus dk funsZ'k fn;k tk;A 10.2 ;g fd mRrjoknhx.k dks ;g Hkh funsZ'k fn;k tk; fd mRrjoknh dz- 2 ds dk;kZy; esa fdrus QthZ tkfr izek.k i= cuk;k x;k gS mldk fof/kor tkap djsa nks "kh ds fo:) ,QvkbZvkj ntZ djkosaA"
(6) The aforesaid reliefs in the writ petition is also as unspecific as it can, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
(7) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-