HLGH_COURT^)F JUDSCATURE CHHATTiSGARH: BSLASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHR1 S.R. NAYAK, CJ. PETITIGNER Writ Petition No.4788 of 2005 N.B. Slngh, aged about 34 years, S/o Late Shri Jodhan Singh, R/o. H-1/20, Narmada Nagar, Bitaspur, DEstriet Bilaspur, Chhattjsgarh •\-.: Vs. RESPONDENTS /-- k.. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Government of Chhattlsgarh Department of Co-operative Societies, D.K.S. Bhawan, IVIantraiaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Secretary, Government of Chhattssgarh Department of Co-operative Soci'efies, D.K.S. Bhawan,!ViantraSaya, Ralpur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Director Department of Geology & Mining, Sonakhan Teiibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Coliector (Mining) District Biiaspur, Chhatsisgarh 5. The Sub Divi'sionat Officer (Revenue) Biiaspur, District Siiaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. The Tahsiidar Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Ljquidator, Adarsha Samuhik Sahakari Samlti, Jairam Nagar, Registration No.2932, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattjsgarh 8. Shri Satyajeet Dahariya, S/o. Shri Jairam Dahariya, R/o. Gram Ppst Deogaon, Pofice Stati'on EVJasturi, District Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh Present: Shri R.K. Agrawal, Jearned counsel for the petitioner. Shrs Vinay Harit, learned Dy. Advocate Generai for the State ofChhattisgarh and its Aufhorities. Shri Prateek Sinha, iearned oounsej for respondents 7 & 8. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4r" September, 2006) Against the impugned order of the Collector, the 4th respondent hsrein, dated 17.08.2005, an appeai lies to the Dlrector Department of h^>- ^^^ -^- Geoiogy & Minsng, the 3r respondent herein. it is pointed out by the leamed counsef appearing for the petltioner that another appeal arising out ofthe same proceedings Is aiready pending before the 3rd respondent for adjudication. If that is so, it is appropriate for the petitioner to prefer appea! against the impugned order of She Coiiector dated 17.08.2005 also. However, it was contended by the iearned counsel for the petltioner that the Coiiector has no jurisdiction to pass the Impugned order. Even this contention couid be pressed into service 1n the appeai that may be preferred to the 3 respondent agalnst the order of the Coliector dated 17.08.2005. in that view of the matter, I decllne to entertaln thls writ petitlon. it is accordingiy dismissed, however, reserving iiberty to the petitloner to prefer an appeai to the 3rd respondent against the order of the Coiiectordated 17.08.2005. Nocosts. Sd/-, Chief Justice