1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) 5f3> wan“ pmmmm No.\)\’/,0F 2000 BETWEEN Gram Panchayat,‘ Sikosh,‘ through its Sarpanch,8mt. Puspa Bai Patel a’ged 35_years, W/o Shri Vishhu ?rasad Patel,‘ Sarpanch , Gram Panchayat Sikosh, Block ~ Development Gunder Debi; District Durg (Chhattisgarh) .‘ EETI§£QNER 3£ 4k N12 *r" E Gavernment of bAL‘c’QQwggixy’A .,Through its Principal $ecpetary; " @P‘w/j ' ' The Collector; Bufg, District Durg A SShri Ved ‘é‘rakash; , H The Sub Divisional QEficer (Revenue)Pa1:an, Digtrict Durg (Chhattisgarh) . $hri Yashwfant Kumar Sahu; Revenue Inspector; Gunderdehiid R—l Division; Gunderaehi (Chhattisgarh) I. Rakeshv sharma son of late shri Chahdrikafrasad Shama, Regident of Village SikoshiTahsil Gunderdehi; District burg (ChhattiSgarh) . $hiv Prasaé. Fade, 5:3/0 Bhri $byamlal; ‘resident oi: Village sikosh, ‘Eahsil Gunderdehi,District Durg (Chhattisgarh) . Madhya Pradesh $tate Miniig Corporation Limited, Branch Durg ,DistricttDurg (Chhattisgarh) '. RESPONDENT$ “@1133“ PLEgggIoN Ugggg~mwgggE$ 23p Am THE ggNSTmUTIoN OF mgg f UNMGQ gay“ 3am uwJEw 2000 W P No.42 of m m Gram Panchayat, Sikosa ~v ,WWIW) Hi 200 State of C'garh & others c mm - '15w12—'2d0c ‘ 2: Shri Alok Aradhe; petitioneg. l.’ ' mw#wm' ammm r la arnea counsel for the Dr.N.K.Sh_ukla, leafrued Deputy Advocate Genera £0: VreVSpondents No.1 & 2., l Shri KishOre Bhavdui':r' respondent No. ’7. $hri Yashwan: Tiwar.; reapondents No.5 &‘ 6. - W1th the consent of flnally heaxd.r { - The petitioner; is a. {dated '9-11-2000 passed in I 2000—2001; . communicated ”t4 on’1o-11-2ooo. The leam Gram Panchayat‘ subfnits th ‘ passed by the SubvDivieio because without hearing t; are advefsel§ aftected by delay in £iling the Vappea a new statey‘oi affairs; t‘ S ub'—Div’i‘siona l Off icer . after formation of the ne w’ State, the'M’ining Corporation would have no jurisdictio f aggrieved by the order Panchayat Cese No.2—A/89/ J the Mining‘lnspector, §urg, ad ‘counsel £0: the petitionerv Pt the order dated O9v11~2000 1a‘l Officer “ispatently illegal ‘1e'v petitioner and others who the said order, not only the P was condoned but to bring 1e interim order was granted by rhea grievance further is that learned counsel fog; ' y learned counse l for 1 the parties, the matter is GRPRJ-—'FS/2‘42—~2IE(X)O~—3V . nnand even otherwise under the l XI-Hc—Js 'mm,wué$nmgg W m L, ..:/;;.. “i 200 mm (W) . ‘- . ‘ '2‘ ' mmwwm, provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, the petitioner is entitled to auction the quarries or fene‘w‘the leasi" . /’ RespondentS‘Noul‘ & '2, in their Separate rxrégun} have clearly stated that they do not support‘the order § . /// passed by the SubvDivisiore; Officer. Respondents No. 5'& 6 also support the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel for tespondent No.7, however, submits that in accordance with the constitution of the'COx-poration, respondent A remove the \No.7 Mining Corporation is ent;tled tofgeana or operate the mining‘quarry and' as the petitione$ had’ no jurisdtc~ tionito renew the Ease , they were certainly justified in challenging the order and the learned S.D.O. was justified in condoning the delay and granting the advinterim relief. I have heard the parties. From: then‘order dated 09-11-2000 (Annexure P-19) v \ it cleanly appears. that the Sub—Divisional Officer I without issuing notice to the petitioner or others/'who are to be- adversely affected. by Zthe order passed by the said S.D.O. , firstly condoned the delaylin filing ’ g the apoeal and thereafter, granted order in Vfavoug 9g aw m, Wm, wag? {610 W m W 200 - w p No.42/2ooo 3mm (W) 3 In the opinion of this CQurt,' when‘an appeal 1”LJ‘ filed beyond the period oi limitatlon; then the partY against‘whom the relief i: sought is entltled to l 2 heard on the question of imitation. ’As the learned Sub-Divisional Officer ha not observed theEbasic principles of hatural jus ice, the order passed by him cannot bevapprovedi uThe, rdef' passed by the learned S.D.o. .V on 09—11—2000 in e above referred'matter, f deserves to and is accord gly quashedi It ls however v made clears that,,this>Court is not touching the merlts rof the matter nor is making any observatLon in relation to the merits‘y The partles present in the Court shall appear before the learned :.D.O. , on 3rd January .2001. The learned S'.D.0.'shall see thatthe appeal memo; application; the doeuments & affidavit} are ‘supplied to the econtestinglpaxi‘ties.‘ They’would be given proper opportunity to file their reply and make their submiSv sions-. After hearing the parties, Ithelearned S.D.O.‘, firstly shall decide the‘question ofv limitation and then,aft%r hearing the par :ies shall decide the question :of grant of stay. /\7. A. gv The petition to the extent indicate%/ab’o;eL‘is allowed. / \