IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (Art 227) No.€6.7’7r /2oos gingie‘igamh‘ Petitioner :: ,S’mt. Meena Devi, W/o. Shri Banshi Prasad Singh, aged about 37 years, R/o. Village Amdanda, Village Panchayat Panchawal, Post Maharajganj , B10ck Balrampur, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1)’ State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Child and Woman Development D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Respondents / 2)/;-ollector, Surguja, Ambikapur K“ Surguja C.G.) w b? l 3) zDi'étrict Programme Officer, Child / and Woman Development Department, Offlce at Surguja Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) 4) /Qhief Executive Offlcer, Janpad Panchayat Pratappur Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Director Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Vaijanti Vanshdhar, R/o. Village Panchayat —Panchayat— v/ ..... C ( Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, District Surguja (C.G.) PARTICLE 227 OF THE WRIT PETITION UNDER APPROPRIATE ' DIRECTION‘mIRECTIONS etc. M.— INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF CONSTITUTION OF WRIT WRITS ORDER ORDERS HEGH CGURT Gs’: CHHATTISSARH t $§LASFU 2&3 FgTiTmM gm. 22?; mgaw c1" 23a _ PET??}0NE?< Sm: Meena Sevi ~M Vefsus §E3?GN BEféTS Si$$ 0f ChQ‘Eiiisgarh 8: O£%‘1ers W {Wr§i geié‘éion unde? Amale 227‘ 0f 'khe itamtémtmn 6f mega S§ag§e Bench : Hawfwe Shri SaiiSh K‘ Agmhairi, J. F3resen‘ :- Ms Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate fer the petétioiaer. Shri AV. S?§dhar, §Qane§ Lawyer fer the sme. $h‘ri Akhiiesh Kumar, z'idvocaie far the reSgchzien: $40.4. Shri VK. Pandey, Advacate fey the :espondem No.6. \yh @QER (GRAL: {Pa-wed on im's 28*“ aa, of embea 20%} [0‘ ‘i. Wifh ihe consent of ieamed cwnsé aggueari'ng fa? iha panéé$, the getitior; is heam‘ fina%§y. ’Leamed caLmsei aggbearing for the §$:§t§aner submfts fhai fhe ciispu'teS ye§aies is vi:§age Amdanda, Gram Panchayai PanshwaL 3§s%r§at Surw’dia, 1: . wh§ch §ai§s w§ih§n like ,§t;;isc§§ction sf Jamaa‘ . $anc:.ayai Bakamwr. we Jaapad Pamha‘ga: 8a%{amyur, being necessary g>afty was no? impieemcei as payiy—yespandem b§fare 2m; $§iecisr (Panchaya'z), Ch'aawsgam, Raigiur, m apgaeai No. 296iB-12w08i37’ Msfead the Chief ExecutWe Gfficer,‘ ianpad 9anchayaé, Prafappur, Amwkagmr, was %mpéeaa’ed a$ a parr‘y-respondeni. The case W‘s sensédered and carciereci agamst $7 pet§i§snef herein. p) "mg resgandené s‘s.4iCh§ef Exewtéw wag; éaapacl ‘r‘anchwat, :‘Q‘miagapw, AmbEkapuz', aggpears thraugh counsei and subm§is ma: the dESg’mte invaives Goes mi: fa§ withm 5&3 §wisdict50a arid, as such. fh$ responclem N94 has neihéng Ea say in ihs matw. [\J ,. , . m3 juncEure, SM appe3iant {respondergi Nc.8 herein} sub aHQ a I YE": i Af Panéey, !eam m e ma§isr may be {emittea’ back ta tha Eire re-ccnsidera‘éion of ihe same affer ame Having :egazd £0 the facts situatien m” any e§§n§an the me?é%s a? i’hs "ase‘ 2G«5-2€}98 {Annexure - Pi?) p’W‘ Chhaéiisgai‘h, Ragaui, m awea: No2 The maize? is rammed back iro F conswera‘tian ef ’ $ovm' ins same afresh (m maki“ ”fer amendmeni ‘“ * vg ed ccunsei agpearéng fcf the a u‘is zhat thi$ was a mégtake cmr {Pamhayat} fa: m‘ing the cause iiiie. ihe case! w§ihcui exg-ressa’ng (Panchayat), DQIB—“ii’i 1663'}? Es washed. “e Dia’eao: {9&nchayaz‘} far ”g apgrepriaie apwécatien m she cau3e ime a? apmai No.205/a ~?2%,’O8.G?. Sd/- ’ Satish K. Agnihotri weal hay the Skeeter