^L' ~ ''^sS^^^^ii^^^J^;' !!ics3KUSSWSSCSK;iii VSS3&'WS 'SSSE. M?ri^^^tt^i^.^^^'^E ^ • ^- [o1 \^,S _-., i y !«'..^''^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR I y. W.P. (227) N0. 'o.^q^ / 2010 S.B. -g^T' PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT ^^^Ss ^^^•^ / ,^ .<.'• .{»t-- Smt. Ambika Bai W/o Sakharam Kashyap, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Chaurabhata, Tahsil- Navagarh, Distt.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS (APPELLANT) 1. The Collector, Janjgir- Charnpa Distt.-Janjgir-Charapa (C.G.) 2. The Sub Divisional Officer Janjgir, Distt.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 3. Smt. Janaki Bai W/o Komaldas, Kabeerdas R/o Village Chaurabhata, Tahsil- Navagarh, Distt.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA // !<J -<^. ^c^ /'/'""*• /••• 'fe" !W1SB" ,y,^'^'\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 3229 of2010 Versus Smt. Ambika Bai The Collector, Janjgir-Champa & Others WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTtTUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'bte Mr. Safeh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Rishi Rahui Soni & Shri Samir Singh, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. Arun (Pa^edon16th DayofJuiy,2010) In this petition, the brief fact is that the respondent No.3, Janki Bai made a comp!aint against the petitioner alteging that the petitioner is not the President of Ekta Sewa Shayata Samuh, Chaurabhata (for short "the iroup") and as such, the fair price shop run by the group under the chairmanship of the petitioner is irregular. The Sub Divisional Officer having heard the parties, directed to maintain the status quo on 27/03/2010 (Annexure P/2). Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appea! before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa. The Collector, Janjgir- Champa while admitting the appeal for hearing, stayed the order dated 27/03/2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 04/05/2010, impugned herein. 'he dispute with regard to the nomination of the president of the group is still pending consideration beforethe Coilector. On perusal ofdocuments, it is found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in granting interim relief during pendency of the appeal. It does not warrant any interference with the interim order passed by the Co!lector, in exercise of jurisdiction of this CourUinder Articte 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. ' The petition, being bereft of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the motion itself. - — —-" Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge