a^ c^z ^f BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( S) NO'f'JJ^ OF 2009 8i^tfe^ PETITIONER .... ^''' A^ \^>..-' ?^-""'^v''< .}-/<" ^:.......-" RESPONDENTS ^f Shiv Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Chhedilal Yadav, aged about 42 years, R/o Rajapara, Nigam Quarters, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through - The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development. D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.). The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7399 of 2009 Petitioner Shiv Kumar Yadav Versus Respondeuts State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers (Writ Petition under Article 226 oftihe Constitution oflndia) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri S. K. Tiwari, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri N. N, Roy, Paael Lawyer for fh.e respondent No, 1/State. QRDBR,(prall ( Passed on fhis 13th day ofJanuaiy, 2010) Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition agaiast fhe order dated 23.6.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by fhe respondent No.3, whereby flie petitioner has been placed under suspension. Leamed counsel appeariag for the petitioner subraits fhat agamst the impugned order dated 23.6.2009 tiie petitioner had filed Writ Petition (S) No. 3197/2009, whereia by order dated 7,7.2009 the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition wifh Uberty to file aa appeal before fhe coiapetent aufhority aad the appeUaat authority was directed to decide fhe appeal witiiiii the Imiitation period, as prescribed under the law. Leamed counsel further submits that accordiagly, aa appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before fhe competent aufhority but fhe saaie is not beiag considered aad decided. Beiag aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Accordiag to leained counsel the Uraitation period has corae to an end, If the petitloner is of fhe view that the order dated 7.7.2009, passed in W.P.(S) No. 3197/2009, earUer, is not compUed with by the concenied authority/respondents, he niay take recourse to fhe ofher foruni, seekmg conipUaiice of fhe order passed by this Court. This second writ petition, for the same relief, which was sought for ia fhe earUer writ petition, is not mamtamable. Accordiagly, the petition is disniissed as not Eiamtaiaable. Thakur Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge