Siogit Bsagji •S^K CTO IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. ? /2006 PETITIONER <^/ y u -y A°ARNA \^ ^•i. ^A^iv^ l l: ^•V frA \^>^^ '. // ^^'l^L ^5$Si;§ Toranlal Nishad, aged 26 years,^- S/o Late Shri Govind Ram Nishad R/o Village Saunga, Vikas Khand Magarroad, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh..^ Through Secretary Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector.- "'" Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Sub-Divisional Officer Dhamtari (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Offieer - Jila Panchayat Dhamtari (C.G.) 5. Chief Executive Officer/' A- Janpad Panchayat Magarroad Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 6. Gram Panchayat Saunga. Through Sarpanch Village Panchayat Saunga Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 6*- /.^w^' ^ 0% .^-~ Sf 620 -c •(2). • , 7, H^eru Ram Sahu; S/o Late Sukul Ram Sahu aged about 32 years, Panchayat Karmi, Vi llage Pan chayat Sau nga Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) W Rl T P ET 1Tl ON U/A 226/227 O F TH E CONSTITUTION OFINDIA »'•• E K.s « PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BU-ASPUR (Hon. Nlr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5349 of 2006 Toranial Nishad VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhatisgarh and others|| i-i: '^: Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh PL for the respondents 1 td, 3/State. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava counsel foq respondents 4 and 5. • Shri Pankaj Shrivastava counsel for respondenl No.6 WRIT PETITIONJUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUT10N OF INDIA OR D E R ?; (16.09.2010) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.5.200Q (Annexure P-1) passed by (Gram Panchayat Saunga) responden| No.6 herein. ' i 2. It' has been pointed out by the counsel fci[; respondents/State that against the order impugned an appeal lie^ lin view of the provisions of Section 91 of Panchayat Raj| Adhiniyam 1993 and Rule 3 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appg9| and Revision) Rules 1995, made there-under and thus !t|^ petition&ris required to first approach the Sub Divisional Officer-; respondent No.3herein. | 3. In these circumstances, counsel for the petifioner submitsi that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition vi/ith liberty tc| file an appropriate appeal. He however submits fhat as thiS petitionwas filed by the petitioner in the year 2006 before thisj Court, at the time of filing the appeal the limitation may come iri •'w^^ ^s; SHi; •r'rs1'! tS .f^;j; iffi!ii '- !|t|!||s;l •/"•;' 2-— ' theway and therefore a direction may be issued that the appelfgS|||||g authority shall consider the point of limitation liberally. 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with th^ ^ liberty as aforesaid. If the petitioner files the appeal within:ayf| •I'i .;1': period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this ordeij; •' along with an application for condonation of delay, the same shall be considered by the appellate authority liberally keeping in mind; We pendency of petition before this Court since 2006. Sd/- pritinkerDiwato Judg —T :i:E:.;!.'li,^.:plj^y1. W9S: ISIiilSJIS :||j.||||| ^•^•»»^\