HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Djvision Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice T.P.Sharma & Hon'ble Shri Justice R.N.Chandrakar. JJ Review Petition (PRINo. 1055 of 2011 ^GV. M.- 75/1( AppEicant : Holy Heart Educational Academlc Private Ltd. Through Its Director Shri S.P. Singh, Fingeshwar House, Chhotapara, Raipur Nors-ApDSicants Versus 1. Smt. Sandhya Mishra, wife of Shri Vidhan Mishra, aged 47 years, resident of Near Chhattisgarh College, Civil Lines, Raipur 2. State of Chhattlsgarh, Through the Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur 3. The Town & Country Planning Department, Through the Directorate, Raipur 4. The Collector, Raipur 5. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through its Commissioner. 1. Review ApDlicatJon under Rule 87 oftheHiah Court of Chhattjsaarh Rules. 2007 Present:- Shri Varun Sharma, counsel for the appiicant. Shri J.A. Lohani, Panel Lawyer forthe State. Oral Order (Passed on 16th August, 2011) Heard. By this review petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.01.2011 passed by Dlvision Bench in Writ Appea! No. 365 of 2010. K.^ y/ 7. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Registry has pointed out defaults that present appeal has been filed after 33 days of its llmitation. He has filed an application for condonation of deiay in fiiingthe petitlon during the course of the day. He has aiso produced the copy of application supported by an affidavit. 3. On due consideration, application for condonation of delay in fiting review petition is ailowed and deiay is hereby condoned. 4. Impugned order dated 14.01.2011 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeai No. 365 of 2010 perused. 5. By the aforesaid order, writ appeal was disposed of with liberty to the respondent No.l-appellant therein to file fresh complaint and Coliector, Raipur was directed to decide the complaint within three months. Operative part i.e. Para 4 of the order read as follow: "In vfew of the above submissions made by fearned counsef for the parties, this appea! is disposed of with Hberty to the appefiant to file fresh compiaint along with copy of this order before respondent No.3 for redressa! of her grievances ralsed m this appeai and the Coilector, in turn, is directed to dedde the same within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in ac^ordance with law, if he has aiready not decMed the pending complaint on the subject matter before hlm at the instance of others." 6. While disposing of the writ appeal learned Division Bench of this Court has not passed any reasoned order. Only on the request of respondent No.1 Ilberty to approach Collector has been granted and Coi!ector has been directed to decide the complaint within a period of 3 months. In these circumstances, no opportunity of hearing to present petitioner was necessary because no order of alienating the rights of the petitioner has been passed without provlding opportunity of hearing to him. Consequently, we do not find any ground for review. The revsew petition is liable to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. -— Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge