IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-I TISGARH AT BILASPUB" wRIT PETITION No. §§’q3 OF 2001. f d/MS/njrt. Chameliya Bai, W/o Shri Sedan Singh‘, aged about 27 years, Occupation—Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Naror, Block Marwahi, District BilaSpur,(C.G.). PE TI TIONER VERSUS g?“ “YSta‘be of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Panchayat Avam Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur, (C. G. ). ‘The Additional Collector; Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, (C.G. ). The Prescribed Authority Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue ) , Tahsil Pendra— Road, District Bilaspur, (c.G.). Gram Panchayat, Naror, Through : The Secretary, Block MarvGahi, District $ila5pur, (C.G. ). n ESPONDENTS,, 2. ¢ f’ » jig I T “PE TI TION UNDER ARTICLE 226 l 227 OF THE CONS TI TUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE E'lC. contd....2 # 03-93-2003. Shn‘ Rajesh Pandéy, cou11s« Shu' Saujay K Agalwal, Dy. 1‘ Shxi Ravi$h Vanna; coun36 ‘ he Whml this p€titi0nv was petitioxmr had submitttsd that th only in the order sheet also i1 Accordingly, record was SEnt for order She¢t dated 269—2001 and iS clsar that mase have 3.36611 ma indicates that ths order sheet aft some Wonis therein has the effec order contradictmy. A perusal t rhe date of hearing was mitially i way of overwriting has been Chan which the order 0f dismissal was The grievance of the V interpolation Was pointed out disposed of me matter on me; petifioner. From a perusal of ree has not been fairly dealt with by ' Clear from the intelpolation in it} in which the petitionn was d reasoned order, therefore, the Aqcordingly, it is, set aside and Additional Collector. Pendra Road :1 for the petitioner. Adv. General for the State. {for the respondent No.4. @jiAXigIiéthe i reviou gate; arne counsei ror Lhe are has been manipulation not 1 the order dated 26—9—2001. and from 'a bare perusal of the ' the subsequent order sheet, it nipulated. The said order mt er deletion and interpolation of t of making the first part of the hereof also makes it clear that ixed to 29—10—2001 but that by ged to O3- 10-2001, the date on passed? nit petitioner is that when the learned Presiding Othcer Eits Without having heard the 30rd it appears that the matter :he Presiding Officer and this is ie order sheet and the manner isposed of by not passing a order cannot be sustained. the matter is remanded to the , for heating and disposal in [113%W .nzf