L4) ,ra) BEFGRE HON‘BLE 6/ 1 ’” wv , w HIGH CWT OF CBHATTI SGKRH AT BnAsPUR (c.G.) Vtit petiuen No. /9@ r2691 gM “ AMAR SINGH GAIKWAD 3/o Shri majroo Gaikwad aged about $2 years, PANCaAYAT KARMI Dhobnikala Panchayat Jan pa§ Panchayat Navagath Tahsil Navagarh , Matt. mum (c.c.) . VERSU$ State af Chhattisgarh ‘ 'lhrough : - Secretary Govt .. of Chhattisgarh Panchayat And Village Development 5ecretariata RAIPUR (CAL) 814T c DmPAD BAI We 5hr1 Bahurdas Gram Panchayat Dhobnikala Jan pad Panchayat Navagarh 'I‘ah . Navagarh Dian. mm; (c.e.). eHxEF EmcvTIVE GE‘FICm Janpad Panchayat Navagarh Tan. Navagarh Distt. DURG (c.G.) 06L ,contd . . .2 2 (4) Assistant Teacher village Gadamor Tahsil - Navagarh ”istt. DURG. £E_TI’1‘ION UNDER A&TIQ;ES 226/227 O? THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ~ XI-HC—22 §qrmmaaE m¥@;%aEa? w.p.No.19a/2001. zm$w%mE Ya 200 S 1« 1 29.3 .2001. ) t shri V.‘G.Tamaska‘r,1e4rned’ counsel for the petitioner. K Dr.N.K.shukla,learn d Dy.A.G. for respondent No.1. S , Shr‘i Dhirendra Mis a,‘1earned counsel for resp.No.2. A perusal of the pe ition wou1& show that it contains nMumber of typing istakes and mis-statementsfof facts. Though, the petitio er is seeking relief against Gfam Panchayat?*has not pr posed to gnaw the said Gtam Panchayat as a party. In ara 5. the petition says that by issuing the impugned or let—Annexure-P/E. the respondents 2.3 and 5 have acted agai t statutory provisionse To the surprise, there is no resp ndent No.5 in the petition. Learned counsel for 'he petitioner submits that in place of No.5 figure '4 should have been shown. Even if, figure '4‘ is substitu ed in place of figure'S‘ that would not meet the allegations made in paragraph 5.5 of the petition which says th it the respondent No.4 wa‘s rge. appointed as village ln-c I fail to understand ghow such petition could be £i1ed in the High Court. hen a petition is required to be filed in the High Court. t e counsel filing the petition would not only be responsilile towards the client,but shall also be responsible {towar ‘s High Court, W§lch ..J.. ‘ f J, my am WW§%M' $Wm petitions which are cryptic or contain unis-leading statements or tend to mi -1ead the Court, cannot be appreciated. g i being dismisse& on the‘ technical grounds, the petitioner a duly ccnstituted petition 8 ‘ is given liberty to file c7 Cw SQ’VX; Wmaaw ‘ ) awammvfg'vr -2-‘ The petition is é,i.€sn}iS$ed. Taking into consjideratizon that the petition is Subbuo against the prepay respondentso / /,- Sdl— i > RS, Garg Judge GRPRJ~FSB 1 1 \. 1/200 1~50,000.