IN:'THE'iH€>N'Bl.EW^aiaBRtt®ii^HiH^TT]ESlJSaiHi^ 'Btl.AJ8PU)R? w.p.(2a7) ]^£),W^~8 720oysin( BETITIONER Sftarikar-laiRathiya,SA3Buclal Ram Ratl-iiyayjageaabout 5(3 year5,Sarpianch- Gra|m i PanEhayatlPatraRali/r/ovillage Pati-apalt, Tatlsii Kharsiya, DfstriGt-RaigaFh (G.G,). VSrsus :1.:;;,-','::;' • ! ; ' ' '. ':: ^ RESPONDENTS t. State 6fGhhattisgarh,]ThrQugti ^ ^ • ^ ^ Seci-etary,; Department of ?Raj-l€Ka^aC;|©.!l<.S.BMawan, ^^tlffijBNM®^®' W "'^'.^ S:v: '^ .'i^'SS^ ^:^ ^" ^^Nf' .'i^i&M ,,,N^^^®||||gg|jg^^|^|Jg|i|||r,? telB'iBBItlKKIB18BU811B®!iMGt?|a|QaFh'^ •- 'iW^^il ?^%^S8S8BWKN^% •;!"i'' ^ ^:t:fisSlNJi)- :.^/-;::'i:"' ': ::^::^: •.' :.;' ?,.';3^^':<:Tli|l;®G)Ue;GtQF,iRaigarh,:••,^ .-:^>isH:.:^ajgarh;tCG:.^)S:1:.'^:: •'•;;' 4. '! .Thei®ih%d3r,^Kharsiya,'Djstffi 5. - The^hlief'Exeeutive'Offiicer, Janpacl^f'ancllayafcKharsiya, Distt.?Raigai-h^C;G^; PETITION?'^Nff@KMl%B @SSm ^B :;l.l.l?l fflffi N§T'ET(IITaaNiHB XI-HG—78 ^si "41<41cf'4, ®ti1^'is,[sidl'Hy . <-yCa^^^ sg.,,,,.._ HWWI fl»*<i<:h ^ 3n^?[ TRW Cyi^»i<^i) 5?n^r ^r friich 'c^T 3TI^?T st>*l ?wiw^ifei3n^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. A 15.05.2009 Advocatelforthe Shri Ratan Pushty, Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. A^ No. 1 to 4. With the consent ofthe parti| The instant petition is di) 04.05.2009 (Annexure P/ll), pass^ Kharsia, District Raigarh (for shoi^ has been removed from the post Patrapali, Block Kharsia, Distrid Panchayat E-aj Adhiniyam, 1993. Shri Pushty submits that th| prescribed autfaority Kharsia, Disti| l/A-89,/2007-08, is illegal and desef Shri Gupta, learaed counsel| that against the impugned order remedy ofappeal is available befor^ Shri Pushty does not disputj Gupta, and prays that some.protec| interest ofjustice till filing pfappeaj itil^ict^l'l tTTR^ff Tf 'fe(?t ^<^l< ^; 3JfOT 3lA?I arwal )r the petitioner. A^vocate for the State/respondent ^s, the matter is heard finally. t-ected against the order dated >^d by the Sub Divisional OfFicer, 'SDO'), vvhereby the petitioner ^f Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Raigarh, under Section 40 of order passed by the SDO and (ict Raigarh in revenue case No. h''es to be set aside. [appearing for the State submits (dated 04.05.2009, the stati-itory- the Collector. the submissions made by Shri ^ive order may be passed in the before the authorify. XI-HG—78 *11*1CTI •ih*11<*» 'TSS -^WM^, 8>ti1*f<i<o, fsKtwy . M'Caa-i).A5.sA,,.,, "^ 200 3 3II^TTI?^T (•i'llai'i?) 3(I^[ qil f<;-1 w an^i in*i •S9 Sahu ^tIIW ^ft^I 3II^T Rille After hearing both fhe part|es impugned order, I am ofthe view fl available to the petitioner and he ofappeal as provided under tfae Shri Pushty prays for some if the petitioner files an appeal wi| today along with an application f4 authority shall decide that applicatj a period of one month from the dai then the effect and operation of i{ (Annexure P/l 1) shall remain stay4< With the aforesaid observatiiin ;s, haying perosed the record and :hat altemative statutory remedy is ihall first avail alternative remedv 'i>i<ilfi<i)-f ^wwifii fe^t <fa«;i< ^sffinan^r and tiiis petition is premature. brotective order. It is directed that |:hin a period of fifteen days from |r grant of interim order, then ths jon in accordance wifh law, within ofreceipt ofapplication, and till {npugned order dated 04.05.2009 this petition is disposed of. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge