L^ [ II: •I i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CMHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRITAPPEALNO. 15.^ OF 2010 AP.PELLANT feri'^t^x^?2; Saimun Nisha, wife of late Shri Sarajuddin Solanki, aged about 28 years, R/o Ward No.6, Gandai, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTs ./^ 0\°^ (rt::^? ^w^ 4^®y/ ^/y -^' ^' ^.i^ 4. r^ 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Urban Administration and Welfare Department, D.K.S. Raipur (C.G.) Cpllector Rajnandgaon, DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.) v: Nagar Panchayat, Gandai, Through: Chief Municipal Officer, Gandai, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) The President, Nagar Panchayat, Gandai, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Dhanesh Ram Sahu, S/o Punit Ram Sahu, R/o Chunchrugpur, Achanakpur (Thakurtola), Tahsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHACT 2006 R/W RULE 157(10) OF THE HIGH COURT RULES 2005. ls-r s g;",s HIQHCa3HI^0E<SHaA'ItISQ»SHi^BIIASEUR W.A. N6. 127of20tt0 ::... -.:;'./. ' AppeUaat SainuinNislaa l:yersus:'.t:,:,.-':''•-,; ••?:1.: ,,. :.:^ .., -. Respbnderits^^^^^^^^^^^^^- S^ WBra'APPEftLUNDE^.SE@'I'G)N!,2i3.)OR'FHE,GHHA'FTIS(3ARH . > % . -HIGH;eONintaPPM^ ^B%StQN/BENe«l!A©T.2006:: . ». DB: Hon'bte Mr. I. M. Quddusi, s & HQI^^ ^ Shn. Basaat ©ewaiigaBL, A^ Advocate^fbr^tBe'appeItant. •:.' •1;''' ; : :: .,-; :;:. . .- , / , ••• . ^;;-^, :,' Slin M. P. S. Bhatmj te LawyeT&r'thc^i'espoiMlentsNd.l'aEid. 2.' •:,' ,....•- • . •' :'- '• 1'" '•'.: •'•^\ SIurKsMtiz Sharma^Adwpeate fi^the re 4. ;NoD!R;f0ri:tlie^:Tes|p'oiu3eafe',N<^:S.:.;;:.^,^:.^^ ', -: •' ; ' :. :, :- tGBiBiciiaSBl (I^sed,on;tliJS:311"?aaFcgiauB^^&tp-);i.''-^ ': ;,,-;. Per^. M.OuddBsI,;J.'.:-;: :.;.:•:.:..::.: . ... " ....^ Heard learned counsel appeanag^ ^ ^well as' leamed coiuisel fi>r the respoiuieiits. This wiit appeal lias been filed agaiii^ tUe im{n^nedjudgmeutand; order dated 261fc April, 2010, passed^by- the' learaed: Suigle Jud^ ui W.P. (C5 No. 1940/ 1010, dismissmg the wnt petition, ^ ^d" agaiast fhe mterua '<)i^r^^^^^d^ ^ditionaL Cc^etpi^ 4,R^na^ •12I./year201Q-tl..:.,., ...,•.„:•...,:•^;'.:'.'. :.:•,-.::.•, .... :':::1 In fact ihe writ appeUaat^^ t^aiiisf the l^eGtion^ o^^^ uiteriiu: applicaticm by tBe Additaon^ C^Ueetq^ Rajiaaiulgaioa'vide pnlerdated 9.4.2010. TluS<^urt6n 5.5,201®;Iias(graate quo in the matterliut ft^ ^ Appeal Gase No. 11 B-lgl/year 20' -t F peituamg^;Biefiare|:?t:iae' 4. 6. Additioaal <3oUecfoT,^ Rajnaaxlg^ (lum^; 'the course oflieartng it has been inentiaaed by leamed couxisel for tte respondents No. 3 and 4 tfaat thfi appeal Uas not beea^p^ due to the status quo order dated 5.5.2010, passed by'this Court. Had therebeen aoy slatus quo<)rderby'w^ Additional Goltector, Iieai^ of the appeal could xiof Iiave been refused oaffiat ground. Therefere, gr^^ be afectuig fhe heanng of/theappealinaiiyaiaiuier. In viem^of the^^ts aad CtFCumStaiices, we dispose oft^ iastant writ appeal wifh a direction to the Additioiial CoUecfor, Rajnaudgaon to dispose oftlie app^ aspossible^referab^'vNtluaainoii^ It is a smatter of^coBSiiiers^^f^ shop number^ 1 is not aUotted, to thfi writ appeUaat th^e^ pbssibilHy <^^ ofmext avaUable shop butifthe sllop nuiulai^ 1 ^ 'M are a^ to othera then it'trould be di^ wrtt appellant. Therefore, we ai^ttf the opu^ tiUfhie disposal oft^appealthfishopsnia^notbeallott^^^^ as we feel that ia case, f|ie iuterun order: is not graated and durmg the pendency ofthe appeal fhe situation is changed, tye^^^^a^ before tlle Additk)nal Gpltector Biaylbeeometnfi^ ' The writ appeat is disposed of aeconlingly. Tbe impug^ brdeT dated 26.4.2010, passed ^ ttae leanied^^^^^^^^S^ Judge stands merged ilifbis oifler. No orderastQ<30Sfs. , Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge