"•s 10- IN THE HIGHC©tlRTOF.n»&ICftT(rREAT ^ytw^ P^riDfi^&fe N^. a^—' • APFtSCKHT BIt.ASIHmTC.G.l -§-^./2&06 Uddhaw Prasad Sahu Aged abaut 29 years S/o. Hohit R^m, resident oft Viltage - Kaparturrga, Tahsif - ! Sarangarh, District Raiggrh (C.G.) VERSUS RESfSONO^EnTS %Wa Ram Sahiu SdttiOf Sh ri .^ /f^ Sarangarh, ^" -*<?'. ^ '/'/ Parkhit Sahu, aj^ed 'about 40 years, R/0. aafvflM.- Kaparti.inga, B 1ock- Barajmfce te, T&hsM Bistrjct ^ 2. !^^ l' ..'"'•'''^ ^w.. ^, EM.n^flvft 'L lc%pfe?w 1^^^ ^^s^.gy Raigarh (€.©.} Aanpad Panchayat, Baramkefa, ThroyglT : Its Chief Exeeutive ©fficer, at ^Baramketa, DTStrict- Raigarh (C.G.) y Gram Panchayat, Kapartynga^ Througti Its Secretary, Block Baram- kela, District Raigarh (C.G.) APPLICATlOHfQKREyXSSWQf^HEOSOES^DA'FED /2-a.:.89.2;Q®6..:;:'':.'•'• -;: ^:;" ":'::'-:"' • ::: :. •; XI-HC-22 3:s^'<ii^i«<<,aTfly'is, Ric'iiyy 3T(^?TM?|ch ^ B-SL-Vv-'«.4iJ p4'»i' 'ts^~ *l|t<MI shxich ••••••••••••••••••••• g-q- 200^ Rfc4"" ••••••••••••••••• • ?v 3n^v?n- fN^^T »*(i«t>Ht?cr sn^r ?Rnw Hf?!T °ni<<fa<f1'i tiitfdl ^'te^<Ri<-i:i< ^aTl^irgn^r 08.2.2007 ffa Chambert This petition has be+n fflal for review ofthe order dated 21.9.2006 passedmW.P.Ifo.3037/2003. The abcwe writ petipon was filed by respondent no. 1 herein, who has ChaUeng^d fhe legality of his removal ftom. the post of Panchayat I^armi/Secretary of fhe concemed Grain Panchayat (Annexu4e P-1). This Court, at the nistaace of respondent no.l, qua^hed the aforesaid order on fhe grounds laentioned in fh^ order dated 21.9.2006 relyuig ou fhe previous decisions of Prakash Chandra ^tus Court passed ia the inatter of fl -Jos- Statie of Chhatttafiarh reported in 2004 Law nmes (C.O) Pa.142 and the Division Bench Decision ofthis Cojurt in W.P.No. 1656/2006 and also the Siagle Bench pecision of this Coiut in W.P.^fo.2356/2006. | Admittedfy, this revi^w pctitionerwas not a party in fhe said writ petition. The c|onteiition of the petitioner is that after removal of the re^pondent no.'l fiom fhe post of Secretaiy, Panchayat Kar4ii, vide onler Annexure P-I ffled in the writ petition, he was ^ppointed as the Parufiayat Karmi, and after passing of ^he orier dated 21.9.2006, the consequence of that orde|r is to be followed aad his r^hts would be affected, fher^fore, the order dt.21.9.2006 be reviewed and he should ^>e given opportanity of hearmg in fhis matter. 7 ('fl^y^) Wi XI-HC-22 ^iT Ra^qRsn^r ai*<i»Hf?<T aiiw ^' ^ ]fJ^/ ffi ^ in*<Mi shtrrai 3^''<il<<lcl'i<, ®t(1y'l?,Rlclj+fy 311^1 ^iacb ^^ ^^^..ft^.^^^ c^ fcl't>«& Adimttedly, so far as the respondent no. 1 is cc no say to it. It was a grievance ofthe rcview the order. It is also an petitioner was not a party In view of the abfl review/modify the order at the instancc of the and who has no say on favour of respondent no. 1 the cause ofaction for ffling the W.P.No.3037y The review petition reqiured to be listed for t^ disiaissed and is accorduii qu^shment peptioner revicw accru|mg •shl<ll'<1''fl'l lllrtT ff f5CS <RlWK ^; srf^ir 3tT^?r quashinent of tfae reiaovat oider of tncemed, the review petitioner has on legal grounds and the is regarding consequence of [admitted position that this review ?n WritPfetitionNo.3037/2003. ^ve, I do not find any reason to pl^sed in favour of respondcnt no. 1 petitioner who is a thud party |the merits of fhe order passed in land who was not at aU related to m favour of fhe writ petitioner [2003.. has no merits. The same is not t<earing on Board. It is liable to be fely dfamissed ni Chamber. Sd/-! Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (^y^) l'