;.S 2':;5.3i1 \^y ^^%^ ci ^y^ ^^••••''- y' ~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P.No. ''AC62-| Of2004 BBI! SS' BETWEEN 1. Sudlie Ram Venna S/o Phul Singh Verma,, aged about 60 years, r/o Hathni Para, Bhatapara, District Raipur(C.G.) 2. Manohar Lal, aged about 48 years, S/o Kanhaiya Lal, r/o Mahasati Ward,Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER A N D 1. State of CUhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Manfa-alay,D.K.S.Buildmg, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Director, Towa Plamiing And Dev Development.Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Collecte^, Raipur (C.G.). i, RESPONDENTS 'N^<^v?'' y i:' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -.- .- XI-HC-22 311^1 ^iT h-ll'h SD^T ^*1 ^l^t -s^ •^ipiRpi, ^gtwTS, fawi'yy WICTI a>*fi<=bNr-^-^^-te 'I^^ST' 200 sti^i ^siiwaftci couitse 29-10-2004 On o mention being made, tti|e 'Shr-i Vishnu Koshta, eounse! Shri N.K. Agrcswal, Deputy Shri Saryay K. Agr'awal, The petitioners have prefer) Constitution of India questionir|< Annexure-P/1, issued by the Pr< Planning and Developnient, Chhatf Counci!, Bhatapara has been cert^ instead of O.B.C. category for the Srief facts of the petition 4 reserved as O.B.C. cate9ory for tf' eonsidering that the S.C. Populatior) noticed by the Prescribed Authori As per the correct figures, the 5.4. 6.797c, whereas, S.C. population o'f Out of the total 28 Municipal reserved as S.C. category. population, the Municjpal Council, BI' S.C. populo+ion. Aceordin9ly, the and the impugnedorder dated 22" under chailenge. I have heard learned counsel +H[d41^! ^l^di* ^1^^ Tf^RSR ^ 3ifig?T anisr case is taken up for hearing. For the petitioner-s. 4dvocate Seneral for the State. for the intervener. •ed this petition under Article 227 of the 1g the notifjcati'on dated 22-9-2004, ^scribed Authority i.e. Director, Town I'isgarh, Raipur, whereby the Municipal igorized as Scheduled Caste category ^ost of the President. |ire that Bhfftapsra Municipol Council was post of the President on 19-8-2004 of Jamul Is 20.66%, but later on, it was i|y that the said figures were incorrect. Poputo+ion of Jamul Municipal Council 13 Municipal Council, Bhatapara is 16.637o. ^o(ineils, 4 Municipal Councils were to be to the correct fjgures of the (atcpara comes at S. No.4, looking to the (lecision da+ed 19-8-2004 was r-eetified September 2004 was issued which is for the parties. Ws Cobneil Acc()rding T XI-HC-22 sn^f^ir R-fi'* 311^1 ?h^ yl?a •?• Barve 77^ -s^ -iiwicf'4, ^•dl'y'i'o, fci<ti't)i<. 31T^?T Tf^K WWITthNI* "'<sn, 200 IN^sr' 3|1?S!1 (WIWHftd -^ E^ .'-1 Learned counsel for the pe| any opportunity of hecring to 19-8-2004 was changed at the baci^ law. I do not find any substance| arguments, learned counsel for" the the AAunicipal Counci!, BhaToparc population of that Municipal Council| earljer decision dated 19-8-2004 Authority, that was rectified Municipal Council, Bhatapar'a and of Therefore, I do not find dated 22nd September 2004 passe^ the petition is without any merit an<^ is dismissed at the adfflission stage i| Consequentty, M.(W.)P. N0.4 7932/2004 also stand disposed of. lookiijig t*l-4l<rt4l^ ^Wv^ ^ ^^ <fa^l< ^ SlPgtT SB^I I'itioner submits thot without affordin9 1^ie petitioners, ear-tier decision dated of the petitioners which is contrary to |in this orgument. Ouring the course of (ietitioners wcs not able to point out thot dijies not come at 5. No.4 as per the 5.C. ^ e^'1" 6. As the mistake which can^aed in the :anie to the notice of the Prescribed to the correct 5.C. population of the ITomul. ajiy iltegality and infirmity in the order by the Prescribed Authority, as such the same is liable to be dismissed and it iltself. ' i..4229/2004and I.A. Nos.7877/2004 & SA'- L.C. Judge d^ J^^L^Ga^