BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227} No. gg?2“ [2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. As mentioned above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER 5% PETITIONER Pitru Bareth, S/o. Siyaram Bareth, aged about 49 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Linjhir, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /:'1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : wwk The Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /2 The Director Panchayat, Raipur (C.G.) /3. The Additionai Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) /4 Sub-Divisionai Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5. / Gram Panchayat Linjhir, Through : Secretary, District Raigarh (C.G.) ‘/ “ Respondent No.6 : Chief Executive omcer- Janpad Pgnchayat Pusore ,. District ~ Raigarh'(c.G.; ." mw,m.m am W WW WIW $Wm SB : I-Ion’ble Shri Manindra ohan Shrivastava 4.01.201 1 Shri Raghavendra Prad , counsel for the petitioner. h Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel avvyer for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, co Heard. This petition under Artie 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order date 31.3.2009 (Annexure P— 1) passed by the Director: Panchayat: C attisgarh, by which the second inst the order dated 17. 12.2008 aigarh, has been dismissed as not ' sel for respondent No.6. appeal filed by the petitioner passed by the Addl. Collector, maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner made limited submissions that even if it as found that the appeal is not maintainable, nothing prevent d the Director, Panchayat to suo motu exercise its revisional j sdiction by treating the appeal as revismn. Learned counsel for th State—respondents submits that even if the Director, Panchay has power to exercise revisional jurisdiction, the same could be invoked through a properly constituted revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the second appeal was misconcei ed as there is no provision for J. a second appeal, but contended the same would be barred by not receive consideration on m Rule 6 of the M.P./C.G. Rules, 1995 (hereinafter refe confers ample power on tl’ application for revision even satisfled that there was suifK same within the period prescril Under these circumstanc to file revision against the authority/Collector, before authority as provided under R revision being filed, the revisi the same on merits without r the limitation prescribed und provided revision petition is f1l today. With the aforesaid obs disposed 0E. that if a separate revision is filed, limitation and the petitioner may exits of the case. Panchayats (Appeal & Revision) rred to as “the Ruies of 1995”), Le revisional authority to admit after expily of sixty days if it, is :ient cause for not presenting the Jed. es, the petitioner is granted liberty order passed by the appellate the duly constituted revisional e 6 of the Rules of 1995. On such nal authority shall duly consider ’sing any objection with regard to er Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995, ed within a period of 60 days from Praveen ervations, the petition is finally Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Hi ‘Erfi'ém