(^\^~^— @ F\ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) . 5 WRIT PETmON (S) N0. ^? ^^ OF 2010 [QNER o..' ^> RESPONDENTS : ^ ^-<^"°/• ^y.^ ^u^ A^ ^^' ^ ^Smt. Lalita Sahu Wife of Shri Brijlal Sahu, aged about 22 years, Resident ofVillage Chapiya, Gram Panchayat Roopapali, Btock and Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.). VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Woman and Child Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). The Additional Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 5. ^ The Project Officer, Woman and Chitd Devetopment Project, Basna, Tahsit Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.). Gram Panchayat Roopapali, through the Sarpanch^ Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ^ @ % 7. Smt. Suroti Bai Chouhan Wife of Chhabilal Chouhan, Caste Gada (S.C.), Resident of Vlllage Chapiya, Gram Roopapali, Block Basna, Dlstrict (C.G.) . Panchayat and Tahsil Mahasamund WmTPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmmQN OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 6308 OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPQNDENT Smt. Lalita Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Manoj Paranjape, ^clvocate for the respondent No.7. 1. 3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 18th dayof February, 2011) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Mahasamund, against the cancellation of his appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker and the same was numbered as Panchayat Appeal case No.26-A/89 year 2009-10. 2. The respondent No.7 also preferred an appeal against the order dated 5.11.2009, which was numbered as Panchayat Appeal Case No.35-A/89 year 2009-10. Both the matters arose from the same dispute. The Additional Collector clubbed both the appeals and heard both the appeals together; however, passed an order in Panchayat Appeal Case No.35-A/89 only accepting the appeal of the respondent No.7. Learned counsel further submits that this is very unusual practice that after clubbing both the appeals together, order is passed in one appeal only, not in both the appeals. 4. Shri Paranjape, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 submits that admittedly both the appeals were heard ,-:ie:u";at^ -'.^^ if ^ ^^*-Yi?3 i ^s together, but the appeal filed by the respondent No.7 alone was decided. In view offoregoing, it is beyond once comprehension asto how an officer performing quashi judicial power can pass such an order. This is really unusual and unknown practice in judicial work. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed in Panchayat Appeal Case No.35-A/89 is quashed, as the other appeal, which was also heard along with Panchayat appeal case No.26-A/89 has not been decided. Accordingly, the Additional Collector, Mahasamund, is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner being Panchayat Appeal No.26-A/89 between Smt. Lalita Sahu v. Mukhya Karyapalan Adhikah, Janpad Panchayat Basna, within a period of 10 days from today on its own merits alongwith the appeal filed by the respondent No.7. In view of foregoing, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. —- ashok Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge fc°