@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DWISION BENCH Writ Appeal No.254 of 2009 Appenant (Petitioner) Archana Dey (Archana Gupta) Wife of Shri Utpal Gupta, aged about 40 years, Occupation Private Service, Resident of Viliage Dipka, Tahsii Katg'hora, District Korba (CG) through : The Power of Attorney, nameiy, Prashant Dey Son of Late kaii Krishna Dey, aged about 49 years, Resident of Viilage Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (CG) VERSUS South Eastern Coaitieid's Limited, through : The Chairman cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG) 2 The Chief Generai Manager, SECL Gevra Project, Korba, (CG) 3 The General manager, SECL Gevra Project, Korba(CG) 4 The Coilector, Korba (CG) 5 The Sub Divisionai Officer, Katghora, District Korba (CG) 6 The Tahsildar, Katghora, District Korba (CG) Estate Officer, Gevra Project, Korba (West), District Korba (CG) The Naib Tahsildar Dipka, Tahsii Katghora, District Korba (CG) Diiip Singh Kenwat, aged about 55 years, Halka Patwari, presentiy posted at Viiiage Chotiya, Post Madai, Tahsil Katghcra, Dtstrict Katha (CG) Respondents CORAM: HON‘BLE SHRI RAJEEV‘GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KU‘MAR SINHA, J. 2x 10 Dasahari Prasad Tiwari, aged about 72 years, Resident of ViHage Dhatura, Post Korbi, Via hardibazar, District Korba(CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Writ Aggeal under Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Present : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukia, counsei forthe appeilant. $hri Atok Bakshi, Government Advocate for the State. Judgment (12m January, 2010) The following judgment of the Court was‘ passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant Archana Dey has tiled this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 24.07.2009 passed in WP(C) No.84? of 2009. 3) The appellant’s writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner’s earlier writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 25.01.95 was dismissed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the writ appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition too was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 4) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in the writ petition, the order sought to be quashed in fact, was dated 250832998 (Annexure P/7) and by inadvertence, in the prayer clause it came to be mentioned as order dated 25.01 .1 995 (Annexure P/4). 5) From a bare reading of the prayer ciause of the writ petition it is apparent that the petitioner in the writ petition was seeking quashing of the order dated 25.01 .95 (Annexure P/4). 6) We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed. 7) The writ appeal, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. 8) The appellant / petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to tile another writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 25.08.1998 (Annexure P/7), which shall be decided on its own merits. i i ,ia Sd/- Sdl- ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha padma Chief Justice Judge