y ^<c ,^ %;;Rn;-: ^33 vlW& • ' " "" IN THE HIGH GOURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR CHHAmSGARH W.P. No. S72.36f2004 Sli PETITIONER Pradeep Kumar Patel, S/o. Laxmi nidhi Patel, aged 33 years, Occupation - '••'.. <A./-**c^ Service : (Panchayat Kanni/Sachiv) ^>.-'''''f^'f[\.^f' Village-Panchayat Dhanagar, Block ^"ye^^r Tahsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) yyy —"--— —±—^—, ^y^^ ^•^ ^'<ft VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat and Social Welfare C.G. Govt. Raipur 2) Deputy Director Panchayat and Social Welfare, District - Raigarh Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Raigarh, District-Raigarh. Director Panchayat Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3) 4) WRI3" JfrETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA > XI-HC-22 :<M3<tM^tei81i^8!Sl6waa,(' an^t;^! • Rt-fi.* ansSr shtlich •^f^f HIOCII WHW i.'-;-y::fiS^.3234&0A4—^ ^^....^...^.-^..^T^ Rl<><T a.ii.aoo4 On a iiienfion bemg^made, Snit, Hamida Siddique, ;^ Shii Sairjay S. Agrawal, •Tespoildeiits.. :. -./l1 ••.1:; , .,, Witlt tfae consent of both flnatly aad being disposed of Tfa.e petitiQiier h^ preferrec 1ay order dafeft_29;^2(3<)^itdiei'et petitioneT:iir^prge£|ie^ie;,No,388j(s Thfi ^titiQner, ?^wlio was ; Village Panchayal;: DIiaa^ar, ^ yide orderdated; 6.9,2004 ^am before fhe CoUector. The CaB thereafter, the petitioner preferred A-89/2003-04) before the 6.9.2004, the Directpr, Panchaya.1 passed by the CoUector, tiJl the re directed to be Usted on 27.10.2( Badruiath Patel and two others of an appllcatioii for early heartng appeal. On fheip application, no' the petitioner'and the petitioner ground fhat he isinotwell. Howev order by the uupUgned orderia th< chl'itfeNl't •Hl1^!^ ts^sl ^t<$i< '^F^Nptsii^i •^e matter is taken-up foriiearuig, coui|tselfer the petttioaer. Govt, Advocate for the State/ |±i£counsel, fhe yetiti&n is heard s(}gaus wnt petyTOn;bemg^^%^ ^ltlle stajT graatedLinifesrouE^^^ ^^yta^S^^h.Ei^beeiivaGated. |BK>ifcaig as J^Slciiayat Secretaiy, (s fenaiiaal^ ^fe^ IES^^ No.2 (st wBleh Iie 'pi^rred^ a^ (ector disnussef^ tfae .appeal aad tliis appeal (Appeal Case Np.288/ trectjar, Paachayat. f V]de order dated |, sitayed fhe opersttjon offheorder ;eipt of record, and fhe matter was $04. However, on 25.9.2004 oue |Gram Paachayat;_DhaDagar inoved even they were not party in the (ice ofearly hearmg was issued to t'equested for graiit of tiine on the ;r, the learued Birector vacated the absence ofthe^petitioner. ^HId <;l'ri<T afad XI-HC-22 •g^iiffllEfi^^^BiSgfctiR-iy *ii*i<ii a»ti<» ^•^'w^ Rl'b^" SII^F^iT Ray)'3ii|g ^RW-yiSfl 1 Soma ^ ^l^. '^' SII^F^siiwjafct -a^ sotae Wiien the petttioner diend a f( subitutted a mediGal certificate, in| Paachayat, ought to have given WpreseiitatksaiQfluscase. Even of order shows that no reason has beet Therefoie, in'tfae ctrciimstanit Djrector, Pas&ttayat., to dispose of j aronth. and tffl fhen, stay ftue^opeiat^ Aecordiagly, the wiit petitk)4, that fhe Director, Ranchayat, shall oneiiioiith:fiic>in?t&date of recetg| thea, tiie petitiOBB:^ shouM; notltoe' atoeadV notliandedsover. ^ In view of ihis ordei^, M.1 disposed of. ; Parties are eiitifled for certifieiB <*wfct41"f 41*tetfM &»<3 <(»Rgi< ^ silwr3ii^( ax that he iis nOtiVF&U ariid he also -the eircumstaaces, the Director, more tixue to ^the petitioner for Itierwise, perusal offtie impugned ^l ass^ned for vacatiiig the stay. ^es, it is appropriate to direct the fhe appeal wifhin a period of one |6n pfoFder dated 29^9.2004. is disposed afwith a directkui |lispose of tlie a|)peal itselfwithiD. |t of a cppy of this order aud till |a&ted ta .haadosBr,the eharge, if (^)P.No.4156/!2Q04. also stends ipTCopy ofthig order. Sd/- LX-Bhadoo judge ^Dft^^^ —}••-;?-•