@ ,C g; kw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATISGARH) W. P. NO.9_37O OF 2004 PETITIONER G T C Industries Limited, a Public Limited Company incorporated under Company's Act,1956 having its Registered Office at Tobacco House, Ville Parle (West), Mumbai Through its Special Power of Attorney Holder Rajiv Rajeshwari Mishra, S/o Sri Rajeshwari Mishra, aged about 47 years, Assistant Sales Manager R/o Plot No.1119, Behind Naresh Provision Stores, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur,District Raipur [Chhattisgarm VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Revenue Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan vSingh Bhawan, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] 2. Additional Collector, Durg, Distt. Durg‘ [Chhattisgarh] Tahsildar {Nazul], Durg, District Durg [Chhattisgarh] 4. Tobacco Employees Union through its Mahamantri Abdul Rashid, R/o W-1, Janata Quarter, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District Durg [Chhattisgarh] S. M. P. Tobacco Company , Pulgaon, Kotia road, Durg, District Durg Through Manohar Ram, Director, Registered Office at 123-B, Rai Bahadur Road, Kolkata, [W.Bl] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT INV NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: The petitioner, above-named, most respectfully submits as under: . XI-HC-22 ‘Q, The petitioner had raised objections ‘ before respondent No.3 and tho e objectiens had been rejected by/ respondent No.3 without valid reas s, without'considering the documents and the case of the petitioner. Ther fore, if the action of the respondents for ich belong to the petitioner, is not 2.9.2004 Shri Manindra Shrivastava, c9 unsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, Govt. Advecate for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. ‘ V The petitioner has preferred t is petition being aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2004 passed by the hsildar (Nazui) respondent No.3 .in Revenue Case No.1 16—N76/2001 2002 (Annexure P_-1), whereby the Tehsiidar had rejected the objection of the petitioner and proceeded with the auction of the plant & machinery wh‘ ‘are of course beiong to the petitioner and teased to respondent No.5. ihave heard learned counself rthe parties. Learned counsei for the petiti ner submits that the piant & machinery; which belong to the petitioner, we leased to respondent No.5 and some outstanding amount is there agains respondent No.5 regarding arrears of wages to the. labourers, for recovry of that amount 'as land revenue, respondent No.3 had initiated proce dings and plant & maohinery were put to auction Which belong to the petiti ner. whereas, the petitioner is not liable to pay any wages to the labourers auctioning the plant & machinery, stayed, the petitioner is going to suffe irreparable loss. Whereas, learned counsel fo respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner has already preferred a revision before the Collector against the order of the Tehsildar and the same is pending, therefore, this writ nefit'inn in not maintainaNa ' - - ‘s / e i h ‘ r h ‘ in repiy to this argument, leurhed counsel for the petitioner eubmitted that it is true that the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Caiiector and the same fact has been qisciosed by the petitioner in this petition. but the Coliector is not passing any order egarding stay or disposal of the revision and the matter is being adjourned ithout any order, therefore, the petitioner is left with no other alternative rem dy, but to approach this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that if thi petition is not entertained on the ground of filing of revision and also on th ground that the Collector is not passing any order on the revision filed by th petitioner then, the petitioner’s right is in ”serious jeopardy without any adjud cation of the matter and there is serious V injustice to the petitioner. i With the consent of both th counsel, a final order is passed that the Collectoris directed to dispose oft e revision as early as possible. Further. respondent No.3 is directed that till he disposal of the revision, he should not part with the position of the, plant machinery in question, which is already under attachment. _ With the above observatio s and directions. the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No. 591/2004 and l.A.No.6389/2004 ‘also stand disposed of. i i Soma Parties are entitled for certifie copy of this order. /// New XI-HC-22