IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITIN NO. i q i 7 /2002 Lallu Yadav, Son Of Shrimm Surat Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/O. Lurgikala, Block Bah‘ampur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) PETITIONER VERSUS w“ The State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Department Of Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Terminated Secretary ‘Of Gram Panchayat) Department of Panchayat, through Secretary, D.K.S Bhawm, Raipur. The Collector Ambikapur Surguja (CG) The‘ Sub Divisional Officer, District Surguja: Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) The V Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Surguja, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh The Chief Executive Officer, Block Bali‘ampur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Santosh Gupta, Son Of Shri Ram Ratan Prasad Gupta Aged About 38 Years, (Up Sarpanch) Occupntion-AgriCLllturist, Tah Ramanujgani, Police Station Chalgali, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETITTN UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA 1/ J RESPONDENTS \rxL WW, Wig, W v4? N» m Wm wzooL mm (Wu) mmm wmm Wwm WWW WW %aif‘aqm SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITEKKER DIWAKER 23.19.2910 Shri N.K.Chattmjee, counse Shri Ajit Singh, P.L. far the Sbri Devesh Achalya, 1 R.S.Marhas, counsel for Iesp. No. \ 8111i Chatterjee fajr1y subm‘ ‘ been passed by the Sub DivisiOIi the law, appeal lies against ths 5 petitioner may be permitted to wi to flle appropxiate appeal before further submits that as the ap; appellate authority be directed ignom‘ng the point of Hmitation. Accordingly, the petitioner‘ petition with the aforesaid liber‘ appeal along with the applicatioi appellate. authority would consid law. it is made clear that this opinion on merits of the case would be at liberty to decide the} with law. :1 for the petitioner, State] resps. 1 to 4. nder the authority of Shn‘ l 5. l its that the onier impugned has .al Oflicer (Revenue) and under aid order. He submits that the thdraw this petition with liberty ‘ the competent authority. He >ea1 would be time barred. the to decide the same on merits is permitted to withdraw this ty. In the eveatuality of filing 1 for condonation of delay, the =r the same in accordance with T Court has not expressed any and the authon'ty concerned appeal strictly in accordance Sdl- 1 Pritinker Diwaker jar Judge