COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT. BELASPUR CORAIVI: HQN'BLEISHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHR3 SUNIL KUMJ^I SINHA. J. APPELLANT/ PETITSONER Wrlt Appeal No.41 of 2007 Panchram S/o Sahasram Sahu, Aged about - 64 years, Occupation ~ Cuitivator R/o - Viliage Semariya, Tahsil - Biiaigarh. Distt.- Raipur 112 Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Sociai Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Coltector, Raipur, Dlstt.- Raipur 3. Gram Panchayat Bhinod Through:- The Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat and Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Panchayat Sangathak (S.N, Shukla), .Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, Raipur 5. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bhinoda, Tahsii Bilajgarh, DJstt.- Raipur(C.G.) 6. Smt. Nisha Bai Satnami, Panch of Gram Panchayat, Bhinoda. 7. Samme Ram Sahu, Panch of Gram Panchayat, Bhinoda. 8. Jitram Sahu S/o Ram Sahu, Panch of Gram Panchayat Bhinoda, Tahsil Biiaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 113 h"^^ 9. The Naib Tahsildar, Sub Tahsil Bhatgaon (Anupam Shukla), Tahsil BiEaigarh, Dlstt.-Raipur (C.G.) 10. The Sub Divlsional Officer (Specified Officer for the Panchayat Election), BIIaigarh Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur. under Section 2(11 ofC.G. Hiah Court Act,2001 read Under Chapter XI Ruie 157 (101 ofthe Hlah Court of Chhattisaarh Rules, 200S Present: Shrl J.R. Verma, learned counsei for the appeilant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, ieamed Addl. Advocate Generai for respondents No.1,2,9 and 10. (3rd Apfll, 2008) . . •• The foiiowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. . , Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Jearned Additionaj Advocate General has ralsed a preiiminary objection about the maintainabiiity of the writ appeal on the ground that the order impugned in'the writ appeal vv'as passed by the learned SingleJudge in exerdse ofthe supervisory jurisdlction under Artlcle 227 of the Constltution of jndla. 2. Learned Singie Judge whiie dismissing the appeliant's writ petition vide impugned order dated 30-06-2006 observed that "in the result; i do not find any ground In this petltjon, which requires interference by thjs Court under Article 227 of the Constltution of 114 Endia In the order impugned, same Is iiabEe to be dlsmissed and it is according!y dismlssed". 3. ln view of the above specific mention in the impugned order, Shri Janak Ram Verma, iearned counse! for the appellant could not dsmonstrate as to how the present writ appeal is maintainable against the Impugned order. 4. !n this view of the matter, the writ appea! is iiable to b'e dlsmEssed as not malntainabie and Is hereby dismissed accordingEy. R subbu No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge