c ^c-f°^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2001 y PETITIONER : ,/ Labho Satnami, S/o Chandra Ram Satnami, Aged about 35 years^ ^«^^/oSohagpur, P.S. Sarsiwa, -^•^^ Tahsil Bilaigarh'Distt- Raipur (C-G-) --r.-' r.^:%^.'** < f^'^^y l VERSUS ^" . ... ^^ RESPONDENTS 1,^ The State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary of Panehayat and Sirmah Vikas, D.K.S. Bhawan,Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. S.D.0., (prescribed authority) Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4. Tahsildar, Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) w WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f w XI-HC-22 3.y ^^ ^\^w^, ^xit^Ko, f®i<ni^^< WR^rr ^qt^'a"w»'p7"T5*5'4/20^ 200 '^^?' 3TT^T^T f^w^n^fT ^RT^T ^f^a ^^•: ^TI^T '^TdT^R <-l[^a 19.9.2001 s !4r<Manoj Paranjpe for) ^4r,Deep Kesharwani fdr the .resppndent/state^ Perused the relevant •to the present cas.e^, It •app€(ars,that the best course open to the writ petitioner.: is ..14 rity i^e^ the Collector higl^l^ghting his grievance^ Accord-<|^ Ing to the counsel for the ^etitioner the petitioner could -j^ not approach the collector 4 21 Sub rule 4 states that t4 there was any difficulty in there is a prescribed compe^ent authority^ I am of the view that such prescribed a to exercise, from today<, C'ollector shall examine and Shr i Paran jpe sulmits tha t GM^?Ql4lT1 'RTH^ff ^ ftTst <f^^l< ^3TRTq3T^T the -.petit.loner ^ rules and regalations ap?lica.bl/K|^ approach the competent aufcho.-i,:^$|^t| ; 'II s the time allowed under secfxoft-liil ^•^"^ e time. allowed for such purpose:^|^ /,.M is seven days. whereas he •toc^k 10 days in obtaining the j^j^ t:^ certified copy. It appears tj.hat the petitioner could have | / ti5" approached the Collector ev^n without certified copy if ^ obtaining ths same, Since iithority niast be given its power ^^ fv.^. Accordiagly t|iis petition is disposed of^ Let ^ this petitioner ^^^^.appr^ach the Collector within 7 days t .-.._.. / l'- o|i receipt of such reference the / | dispose^the same on merits ^ by a speaking order within ^r-^urther period of pne month t jsince the petitioner has not -t- J^^f^ W^T^T t^:?N:)'>3?i^T '^n^'^tiTf 3TT^T'^^ (^f^^ST ) 3^T'^cH^R'dt^ >2., 4o handed over the charge to continue until the m4^ Collector^ In my view I interim prayer in this by the Collector himselJ opinion that it would has been taken over frbiiji he may be allowed to der@d by the Collector b^ ^j^fa41TT TTFT^f ^* fe^t' Tf^R^K ^i"^rf^R^1^f any one^ he should be allowed m^tter is finally decided by the |can oaly say this much that the r|egard should also be considered !• However, I aray further of the fairto say that if no charge ^>^.; the writ petitioner till date^ ^^vtK^^— uritil this matter is consi- corttinue litmself^ /\ Sd/- Chief Justice