•^ BEI^RETHgBOEr^EHI©H(»Um'<^GHHAT'I>IS(3ARHA'T BILASSU WRIT pETmoN rea NQ. /2008 PETITIONER ^S^-f' IS5»3wS'?-""" ^R3"°1'*'" '. ' . '.•'.• '..-.-.:. RESPGNDENTS Sampat Lal GolcHha, aged aboul: 53 ^years, son of Shri ObKcigatalji Golchha, .^Mam 'Road, KQndgaon; Talr. Kondagaon;]:)istt. Bastar(eO) •VERSUS , ',. .:-:- •^ 1 - •"' 1 :'. ^. StasEe ofChhattisggjrh, ttiroi.igh , ' the Secretary, Depart^entiaf'EQresf,^ I3aMr.Ka]yan;;:SmgB^:®he.wam,^RaiByJFi! WK ofi||j;jElG!Ee§f,|li|l;!£^Etffi|ri ¥:SII ISK!IIKIfilB liffii iSS18M%<^i3^'^'^?l:11^^ :MBS:NM!BBS%UgSIBffiliBBilN':;'''i:.^'l!:.:::^;^ ;jaBBBKa»affi»Mi@ffl®tl§it8lBB®ia®6t2®®|KMBI^^.'!5iil^ ^SI:Rli—SSilBB^—B8MS3?@B'' HIGH®0URE0EeHH^ITIS©ARaA^BmASPUR ^PEI'mONER RESPOHKEWS SVRFT PETmONiCO^ No. 4325 of20Q8 8at^>atLal(joletiha-s, :'®RSt38-^'l-.i..;.f::1 '.^ State ofGhhaffis^lli & Offiftrs. -ih..^ WRrTPETITI©iS BERAIflTC^226Q2T<)F^t^ :^:::^sESFDM:...-/:^^';/- ••::1'^ 8B: Hon'ble SIiroSaasni£..Aanfflwtri,J; Pres^:^ S^ :;^ ;iSh SltashanfcThdsuigi^^ O&liERfORAIA :''';: ..^^S'T:.:''.l.. <P^d(m29thdayN June,,20IO) ; 1. LeamedcounselappearinglRrthepetilion^suhmitstt^^^ being aggaeved by 1h& orderdated 26.04.t988 (Annea^Kj^^jsseft ^1»y:.tUe';;resp(fflidcnt'.l§e.^:':pBeffiiTjjd|^i<s<atutt^ .re^ondgat^^oHi^O^l^^p^esgs^ Forest, Kanker Circle, vritUout^lal^^ wrthout eomKlermg Ifae appeal <m nierit,^^^^^d^ 04.10.2007 (Amie3aireWl),affea;pei^M 1^5^ fiUDg of the aj^al o^ limitatiori. TCiis, the a^eal wasidisnusse&^bei^jbm^ b^ ^inMtat^ urider ^•the pcovisions of secti^; 15-A! af.ttej (]Sihatt^g^;|yanf^ ^ CVyapar^lVna^fflii^^4i<3NfflxNfe^l^^!(^''SN^ '.::1969'). :',':.::J'..,:•:,.',-:^ 2. Inthe sud Qpder,11le C(ais«r^^ discussedaBoutlinutatf6noT,delay'm^^ No. 2;:has':ta|ken.'re®}Ut^'te^ r;i8^:^ns^|Qfi;sectioa Aifeimyain, 1^9^ior fhe purpf^^^^ ^ y Wt 15-A of&e Mhnuyam, 19^ itfisftlear tiM{ ^cti^ Ww !ii:s: %;p Ss^^ 4. onlymcaseofaaorderofconfiscatiQn,ifappealispreferred,&esame may be done within 30 days ofthe order. There is no dispute fhat there was no order ofconfiscatiQn which was impugped before the respondent No. 2. Thu^ Ihe respc^eM NQ. 2, after having appUed^fe provisions of law without discussing the delay and leasons., dismissed the appeal on ^ fffwM t>{ ImulaSwn. Th? arder uripugied is l.msustainable ui law. ft as>ears that 1he respQndeiitTSto. 2-has passedlhe order in a very casual manner bydismissmg the appeal on the ground of Imritatron. : :• -: '': : - : :::::;/; Fcr tiie reasons nientioaed hereinabcwe, fhe impugried order dated 04J0.20Q7(AnnexuTeP/l)is<^ashed.'Tliedelaymfilmg-tlwaBpeal,^ any, is condoned and the appeal offfie^pe^<mer1?e&^theTespandeHt; No. 2 may1»restQred^^fh®Qrigin^fmfflat)^, is&i^ faavmg regai^totMe fa<^ c^theease'tB^ formore'than 19 years, therespondeDit No. 2 shall lookimto theinatter and after afibrding oppQrtunity ofheaFingto fbe parfies eoncemed, passi appfopiate arder jn^ccordaitee-w^ law,^ ^ months fixun receipt ofa copy ofthis oirder. The writpetition is allpv^tcrthe aboveextent. Noorderastoeosts. ; Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge w& SiiWW t?n 1.?