IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)NO. '^J-^l /2010 PETniONERS y ^' ?/^ ^A^'/ ^'..••'iX^y .0 ^w ^^?y <</'/ ^' ^ -'"' ^ RESPOKrDENTS 1. Shrikant Awasthi S/o Ambika Prasad Awasthi, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Podi, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham C.G. ^' . 2. Archana Singh Rajput D/o Devnarayan Srngh, aged about 20 years, R/o Ward No. 9, Old House of S.S. Pathak, Tahsil Kawardha, Dislrict Kabirdham C.G. ^ 3. Anil Kumar S/o Chandrabhan, aged about 30 years, R/o Villge Chamari, Post Rengakhar, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham c.G. VERSUS l^State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. ^' !1 _ - . 2. The Director Pcinchayat, raipur C.G. 3. The Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, through the C;l^ief Executive Officer, District Kabirdham C.G. I* C3\ 4. Janpad ABpchayat Bodla, throug} the Chief Executive Officer, District Kabirdham C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTlTUTtON OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AjN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAM US/CERTIORARI ET<^ OR DIREGTION/ORDERIMTHE LIKE NATURE ETC. 311^1 W R-fi* ^T^W W ^KIWI StlNI'0 Tumane ^mvn »*<ic(» 's^l ^ww^, e>T)1'M<is, F°«ni<H'j,< .^.:l..Ll^^A°...W[ 200 SII^I'T^R' ('^^S^) 1?^<iiW ^ff^t <»ti^fl SB : Hbn'ble Shri Manlndra Mohan S 26-07-2010 Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel fcf Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advoc^ l-1eard on admission. Submission of learned couns^ account of non-issuanceof appoinbne| an appeal was preferred before the Collector vide order dated 08-02-2310 was filed before this Court by the petitic dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to before the authorities. Now, the repre dated 29-06-2010 (Annexure P-1). Underthese ciroumstances. thel appellate authority namely the Coltecto| the Collector on the ground that thej decision. Accordingly, taking into consid| favour of the petitioners, liberty is res^ against the order dated 29-06-2010 (A| fited within 30 days from today before on ite own merits without going into ths +i<<[<'t<i1-f ^wvS '9 fst6 <Ri<$i< ^'<*iRi{l ^ftSsi lirlvastava.J. the petitioners. te for the State on advance copy. for the petitnners is that eariier on [it order despite preparation of merit list, polfector, which was dismissed by ttie jAnnexure P-7). Thereafter, a writ petition ^ner atong with other pereons, whfch was Fjursue the representation already pending jsentab'on .has been rejected vide order petitioners oughtto have approached the ', as the eariier appeal was dismissed by matter remained pending without any 'ration that remedy of appeal exists in •wed to the petitionere tD fite an appeal inexure P-1). In case, such an appeal is :he Collector, the same shall be decided ^uestion of limitation, With the aforesaid observation, flhe petit'on is finally disposed of_ Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava , Judge 3!if<U sislNSallRRT, {Rafipri.T-^-FS'!47—2.'201»—! ,00,000.