o' HIGHCOURTOFCHHattteGAttHBIUtepUR » W.P. (CtMo. Saa0nf9i » Lata Chandrakffl-, Wjfe otj'awari Kumar (^hdF^r, agedabout 39 years, resident of Vlllafle Kumhari. TahsjlAararig,DistrictRaipur(CG)' Versus 1. State of e^attisgarh.^ to^ Secr^arY-SG©|at^^^, V^ ~S ^;f^l'@llt^:^f:s'<''.- ':'^:':r;"B^MM®SIKfi^a ^?^p"i','; :.DiStFi f^i|3yt|(©(3l..,:^:.:,'':''::',' 2. Adclitiona olteetor,Raipur.Distnet Raipur(CG) 3. Sub Divjsional Officer Cum prescnbed Authority, ^arang, Headqyarter at Raipur (CQ) 4. Chief Executjv& Offrcer, Janpad PanGhayst-Aararg, Tahsii Aarang, Distric(iRaipur(CG) Wnt PetJtionunderArtiGle226ofcthe(;ohistttuttonofl(Mlia ^ftDpearance: Shri Sourabh Sharma, Counsel for ttte petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General forttie State/ respondents No. 1 to 3. -fl»- ORALQRDER {2A.-S0.2S08) —•"> SUNIL KUM^&SiNHAuL Heard onadmission. Thepetitionerhaschaitengect^tftevatidity^ofWeoRAerdated 24.9.2008 passed bytne Adaitional. GolleefQr, Raipur io^ 31/A-89^ (15)/2007-08wherebyahinfenmappneatlonfiiedal(W fSi^ta B 'l>l:i^>; ?"'?:: ir 's^s W.P. (GtNo. $990 of 2008 o with the appeal forgrant ofstay was dismissed by the Additional Collector and the matter was directed to be Ijsted for heartng on 30.9.2006. During the course of arguments, learned cpunsel fer the petitioner submits that the appeal hasbeen flxed for final hearingin tnemonthofDecember2008. In viewof the above, 1 am not inclined to entertain the writ petition fited agalnst the'interim order passed by the Aciditional Collector, by whichthe said stay apptication has been dismissed by him. Accordingly, the wrlt petttion is dismi^ed at the motion stage itself. i~ However, it is observed that the concerned Additional Coltector shali try to dispose of the matter at the earliest. ^^ar^a