IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P. No. S©%4* 12005 Puma Chand Sahu Aged about 31 years Slo. Jeevardhan Sahu §‘\%\A\©§ R/o. Vill. & Post Lukapara, P.R.Nu............ . Block Baramkeia, District Prese daiedikl. uih i¢\,¢§/ Q ................... Raigarh (0G,) PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Department of Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director, Panchayat, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector District ~Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Prescribed'Authority and Deputy Director, Panchayat Avam Samaj Kalyan, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) m §qf$ .W.;S?..n§jgglg 311wW Wm) .... ............m 20m- 1‘115 1€ga}ity and validity of t1? (Annexum—P/ 1) 311:1 28,9.20( 19.92005, ilm povmrs undm‘ Adhiniyam, 1993 haV€ bfmn w i$ all interijn order passai b casa No. 150fA—89f 2004435. Laammd counssl for ThE impugned order Annaxum—Pfl 3 prefened em appeal bafore t} dismissal by fht‘. appallaté: am I have haard the: hamlet. Stata at 1€11gth, 111 tlm opinion of this p€ndiug bEfGre the appalate a dated 19 . 9 . 2005 (Annaxura- interfme with this order at 28.9.2005 is couc€niecL it is the: appdlate. authom‘ty, it is : c impugnEd order dated 19.9.2005 5 (An‘nexul‘e—P! 2). By order dated Section 69 (1) of the Panchayat Raj Lthdrawn. The order dated 28.9.2005 y the Director Panchayat in appeal §eii1i0ner submits that against the dated 19.9.2005, the petitioner had ie appellate authority and by order dated 28.9.2005, the. application for grant of iiiterim stay has been hority. ceunsel for the petitioner as well as Conurt, when a statutory appeal is authority against the impugned order Pf 1), it would not be proper to this stage. So fen“ as order dated an interim order of refusal of stay by lot justified to interfere with interim mmm’anéa WWW§%W awmsr 21.10.2(305 Shri R. Pradhaii, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Fae e1 Lawyer for the. State on advance copy. Heard. The petitioner has filee this writ petition challenging XI-HC-78 W §Hil$ ......., ............................. aizw 311wm (Wm) ammsmqiw marm&aiai > mmmma ,_ l, mmmffww aawanéa order passed by the appéHale authority, I am got inclinad t0 mterfare with this ordm‘ also passed by the app611ate amh'ority. Tha pstition has 110 mtri’ts. It is dismissed at the moh'on 1 stags. Howavar, it is €Xp€ct6d that fhs appallats authority would hy to disposs. of fly: aforesaid app 3.31 at the ear1i€$t so that tha dispute bstwssn ths partias may come to ail {311(1; ‘, i With afaresaid obssivations, the 13€titi0n0£1ds finally disposed of. ‘ai i Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge