.^sss ...^&^ 'tsiB^ 1 Jy M! ^ajsa^11"' '^ ^ CL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAltH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Q No. 5903 of2008 Dileep Kumar Kunni, S/o Mayaram Kurmi, aged about 35 years, R/o village-Ruse Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham. VERSUS 1. Director, Panchayat, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector, Kabirdham District Kabirdham (CG). 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Pandariya, District Kabirdham (CG). 4. Ramkishun Sahu; Sarpanch Village Paachayat Ruse Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham. (WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTFTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. ABnihotri, J.) Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Sfari Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORAL OKDER (Passed on 22 day of October, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. I. The petitioner impugns the order dated 25.1 >8 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Director, Panchayat Chhattisgarh, on the ground that since proper opportunity was afforded to the re.spondents; there was no necessity to remit .„ back the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Pandariya, (for short 'SDO') to reconsider again for affording proper opportunity of hearing. At this stage, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner restricts his prayer to the eflfect that the interest ofjustice would be sub-served, ifthe SDO is directed to reconsider and decide the case; within the stipulated time i.e. within a period ofsixweeks. Wh. ''tllBfei ?. si s ~11 S 'i':.. %^^',/»~ l'-SSE1.3uES>y" Safan 2. Shri Pyasi, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is no reason as to why the matter should not be decided within a period of six week.s from tbe date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. 3. In view of foregoing, tbe SDO, Pandariya, is directed to reconsider and decide the matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks froni the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order, in accordanee with rules. 4. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 5. Consequently, I.A. No. 01, application for grant of interim relief, stands disposed of. I.A. Nos. 2 & 3, application for exemption from filing certified copy of annexure P/2 and application for taking documents on reeord, respectively, also stands disposed of. Sd/- . SatishlC.Agnibot" Judge ^