HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •<- <;„;. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2554 of2008 Bajrang Kumar, aged about 25. years, S/'o Shri Mohit Raiu, C^te — Kurmi, R/p Village - Kudkai, Jaapad Panehayat, Pendra, District — Bilaspur (C.G.) ~ RESPONDENTS : 1. 2. 3. 5. VERSUS ; ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Throu^h Seeretary, Panchayat and Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Ranmarayan S/o Hooblal, aged ahout 25 yeat-s, Caste-Ghamar, R/o Village - Kudkai, Janpad Panchayat Pendra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Sarpanch, Gram Paachayat, Kudkai, Janpad Panchayat, Pendra, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Secretar^', Gram Panchayat, Kudkai, ^Janpad Panchayat, Pendra, District - Bilaspur (C:G.) Sub-DivisionalOfEcer/SpecifiedQfficer,PendTa Road, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. AsnihBtri. J. Present: ShriB.L.Dembra, Advoeateforthepetitioner. ShriAlokBakshi,GoveHimeritAdvocatefortlieState. ORALOBDER (Passed on 05U1 day of May, 2008) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner aid leamed counsel appearing for the resppndent No. 1/State, the matter is taken up for fmal disposal. - 1. Shri Dembra, leamed counsel appeariiig for fhe petitioner sybmitsthat the Gram Panchayat Kudkai, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur passed a resolution on 29.02.2008 Jx>r appointment of petitioner as Panchayat Karmi. The respondent No. 2 challenged fhe said Tesolution/proposal before Ihe Sub DMsionaI OfBcer-cum-Prescribed Authority, Peildra Road. The Sub Diyisional Qfficer has g'aated stay of theSaid proposal. . <«. 2. 4. Shri Bakshi, leamed Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that it is not clear fi-om the documents fumished by the petitioner as to whelfaer any order dated 29.02.2008 was passed on the basis ofresolution ofthe Gram Panchayat, which is uader challenge beforethe Sub Divisional OfEcer. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on fhe facts as well as law, it is desirablethat the Sub Divisional Officer is directedto consider and decide the revision ease No. 7-A/89/2007-08 (Ranmarayan v. Sarpanch, Kudkai & Others) after hearing both the parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably withia a period of six weeks from Ifae date ofreceiptofacopy oftfais order. In view of the above, this petitibn stands disposed of. No order asto costs. ^ -^1', SdA ,. ^ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge