M3 W; @, IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. PETITIONERS gc’i§—é (2009 / : 1. Sunil Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Kamla Prasad Dubey, about 3O years, R/o Village Salka, /Ba1'kunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). 2. Mahendra Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Premshankar Shukla, about 2‘7 years, R/o Schoolpara, Thakur Ajay Singh School, / Baikunthpur, District-Koi‘iya (C.G.). 3‘ Bikash Kerkatta S/o Shri T. Kerkatta, Aged about years, R/o Village Phoolpur, Post Chinddand, District Koriya. 4. Sharad Kumar Soni S/O (late) Shri Shivshankar Lal Soni, R/o Mahalpara Road, Purana Bus Stand, J Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). 5. Mansharam S/o Shri Dujeram, Aged about 31 years, R/o New Miners Quarters No. l / 10, Chirmiri, District Koriya {CG}: RESPONDENTS VERSUS z 1.4mm of of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Department of Panchayat 8L Rural Deyelopment, Mantralaya, .D‘;K.S. W V (MBhawan, Raipur (CIGJ 2‘ Director, Directorate of Panchayat & Social Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Ctilef 3. Eiiecutive Officer, /Koriya) (C.G .). 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, M» District Koriya (CIGJ. 5. Sub—Divisionai Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur, District Koriya(C.G). 6. / District Collector, Baikunthpur, Dist. Koriya (O.G.). N PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH CQURT OF CHHAT’I‘ESGARH AT BELASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JU$TICE PRITINKER DEWAKER w.P.gs;.No. 6756/2009 Shn' Mazid AH, counscl for thc petitionars. Shri AV. Sridhar, PL for thé State. ORDER (30. 1 1.201 1) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have an alternate remedy for $ing an appeal before the Commissioner and therefore, they may be permitted to Withdraw this petition with aforesaid liberty. He further submits that as the appeal would be time barred, the Appellate authoxity may be directed to ignore the point of limitation while deciding the appeal. Leamed State counsel submits that point of limitation be left open for the Appellate authority and if the petitioner moves any such appeal, the same would be considered in accordance with law. Petitioners are permitted to wimdraw this petition with the aforesaid. liberty. withdrawn. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as Needless to state that in the eventuality of tiling of any such appeal along with appiication for condonation of delay, the same would be decided in accordance with law keeping in View the fact that the petition remained pending before this Court for a considerable period of two years. : Sd/— * Pritinker Diwakeri ‘ Judge v PETITIONER Sunil Kumar Dubey 8r. Others versus Respondents State 0f Chhattisgarh 85 Others