^^ c' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHMTISGARH AT BILASPUR ..^' Writ Petition No. ....?^'.^.../...2003 PETITIONER Shobhni Bai, W/o Ge.ndram Sahu 6. / ^ Aged.about 27 years, -^•'^^* ?^ vl^a§e Fulwarikala, ^^%?^^ /Gram Panchayat Bihazhar, y^^y y Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ..^'sCy .-^•^' t»*&'° ^'^ ^'RESPONDENTS ^ ^. ^ ^.- S7-y ;v fK^ VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mahasainund, Distt. Mahasamund 2. Secretary Janpad Panchayat, ^L^. Vikaskhand Bagbahara, Tahsil & Distt. Mahasamund. 3. The Secretary Mahila Bal Vikash Mantralaya DKS Bhawan Raipur. 4. Gram Panchayat Parpatpali, Through Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Vikas Khand Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund. 5. Narmada Bai P^- W/o Nemichand Sahu, R/ o Village Fulwarikala Vikaskhand Bagbahra, Tah. & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 2^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICt/E 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR PETITiONER WRET PETSTSON N0.705 OF 2003 Shobhni Bal RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J< Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Akhliesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER (ORAL1 (Passed onthls4th dayofApri!, 2011) 1. Heard iearned counsei for the parties. 2. On perusal of the order, particulariy the impugned order dated 11/11/2002 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Coliector, Mahasamund, It appears that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed not on merit, but on account of want of prosecution. 3. Be that as it may, without going into the merit of the case, the impugned order dated 11/11/2002 (Annexure P/6) is quashed and the matter is rennitted back to the Collector, Pvlahasamund for fresh hearing on merit after affordlng fuii opportunlty of hearing to al! the partles. 4. Since, the petltioner has'- failed to appear before the CoSiector, Mahasamund despite several opportunitjes granted, the petltioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs2,000/- as cost to the respondent No.5. 5. in view ofthe above, the writ petition is aliowed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge / Arun