^-^ ^y ^s Narayan Sahu, aged about 22 years, S/o (Vlahettar Sahu, R/o village Rapaula,, Block, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, CG. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of| Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantraiaya, DKS BhaSvSn, CG. The Collector, District Raigarh, CG. The Additional Coliector, District l,CG. The Sub Divisiona! Offlcer (R), Sarangarh, District Raigarh, CG. Ramnath Sahu, son of Mahesh Ram Sahu, Sarpanch (suspended) Gram Panchayat Rapagula, Block Sarsnaarh Mr. Prakash Tiwari, counsel forthe petitioner. !Vir. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4. None for respondent No. 5 though sen/ed. E By this petition the petitioner calis in question the legality and vaiidity of the order dated 2.9.2008. (Annexure P-4) passed by the AdditiQn.ai. Col.jector, Raigarh, revoking the suspension •-r"— !i; ii Z3K m — -2. — order of respondent No.5, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, 2. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, counsel for the res; <3< 1 to 4 submits that the suspension of Sarpanch Sahu (respondent No. 5) was directed to be revoked by the tionai Coiiector, Rai vide order dated 02.09.200S (Annexure P-4) and the said order is revisable before the Director, Panchayat under Rule 5 of the .Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeai and Revision) Ruies, 1995 (for short "the Ruies") and as there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 3. After arguing at iength, counsel for the petitioner very fairiy concedes that there is an alternative remedy availabie to the petitioner of fiiing the statutory revision before the competent authority. He submits that as theorder was assaiied before this Hon'bie Court, the iimitation period prescribed for fiiing the revision has already expired and therefore, a direction may be Jssued to the Revisional Authority for liberally entertaining the point of timitation in filing the revision. in view of this fact, counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the iiberty to fiie the revision before the authority concerned. ::iii!' ^IM' !|i i:i$t{i m\ iMlff -3- 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. However, if the petitioner approaches the Revlsional Authority by way of filing the revision, it shali consider the point of limitation iiberaiiy iooking to the fact the petitioner has fiied the writ petition before this Court thereby sufficient time has been consumed, and decide fhe revision expeditiously. Sd/- PritinkerDiwak Judge er v ^