Vikas Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J

Heard.

The petitioner would pray for a direction to respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry himself or through appropriate agency on his complaint and hear his

appeal or transfer the appeal to any other SDO(R).

According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 was declared ex- parte in the proceedings before the SDO(R), but after that date, respondent No.6

Dharmesh Sharma, Advocate, inserted his signature in the Vakalatnama, which amounts to interpolation of the official records.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after putting the signature by respondent No.6 in the Vakalatnama, respondent No.4 is delaying

the proceeding and is not allowing the appeal to be decided by the SDO(R). When complaint against the illegal act of respondent No.6 has not been

attended by the SDO(R) and the petitioner's further complaint before the Collector has also not been attended, the present writ petition has been

preferred for transfer of the case to any other SDO(R) and for conducting enquiry and taking action against respondent No.6.

So far as transfer of the matter from one SDO(R) to another SDO(R) is concerned, the petitioner has the remedy of filing transfer petition before

the higher Revenue Authorities including the Board of Revenue. Similarly, complaint against respondent No.6 can be preferred before the Regulatory

Authority i.e. Chhattisgarh State Bar Council. Writ Petition is not the appropriate remedy for the said relief.

The third relief seeking enquiry against the counsel (respondent No.6) for putting his signature can also be examined by the concerned authority

before whom the file is pending, as this Court in writ jurisdiction cannot enquire the issue as to whether the signature was put before or after certain

date.

The writ petition has no substance and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.