HISH COUR7 OF CriHATTZS6ARH AT BILASWR Writ Petitian (S) Na. 2667 of 2007 ffram Pmchoyat Chuhiy'u, Through ; Soirpandi Chhatrsya! Sirigh B^jcre, S/o. Khikram Banjar-e, aged about 26 years, R/o. Village ; Oihuhw, TAsil Bitai9arh, bistt.Raipur (C.6.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throigh; Principal Panchayat A Sociat Welfnre, b.K.S. BhdNfan, Roipu* (C.©.) 2. Coliector Raipur Distt. Roipur (C.6.) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchoyat Bilai9arh, Distt. Rdipur (C.&.) Cnnstjtution af todto Singie Beneh; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. ^mhotri. Pressnt; Mr. J.R. Vsrmc, Advocate for the pstitioner. Mr. Arvind bubey, Pane! Lsiwyer for Stote/respondents No. 1 & 2. O R 6 ER 2. 3. (Passed on y Ctoy of ttay, The petitioner seeks a writ in the nort'ur'e of mandamus/cer-tiorari egainst the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Secretdry in the Grsm Panchayat ChhAia and not to issue any permission or direction to withdraw any <»nountfrom the Pancheyfft Fund of ©ramPanehaysf Oihtiiio. Lear-ned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that 1+ie petitioner 13 Scrpanch of firam Panchtyert Chhuhia and the post of Secretary is lying vacant. Jhe competent authority, i.e, respondent No. 3, has not appointed any Secretary, md as such the work of Grcm Panehcyat is suffering. Tne ffram Panehay-at, Chhuhia has eorlier approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1606/2007 for the same reltef ii+iereunder and whereby, after considering the facts of the case, this Courtdirected the Chief Executive Officer, Jaipod Panchayat, Bilaigorh to take steps for oppointment of the Seeretary for the concerned ©ramPcnchayat within a period of two weeks from •the date of receipt of a copy of this order, vide order dated 20 March, 2007. 4. According to the lewned counsel appearing for tiie petitioner, the order of this Court has not been cwnplied with. Once a writ/directfon has teen issued by this Court-, the second petition for The same relief praying for the same writ/direction is not maintainable. However, in the facts of the case, when the writ is specific and the petitioner claims disobedience of a writ by any outhority, the altemative forum inder the provisions of Contempt of Cburts Act, 1971 is available. 5. In view of thot, this petitton is dismissed. However, tiberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to aiy other altemotive forum that may be available under low to seek compliance of the order- dct'ed 20 Mardi, 2007 passed by Ihis Cou-t in WP.(C) No. 1606 of WQ7. 8d/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Subhash