HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, PETITiONER WritADpeal No.32/20QS Bhuvan Ram Yadav,S/o.Shri Picharu Ram Yadav, aged 38 years, R/o. Vi!le. Pithama, Block Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur. Versus RESPONDENTS 1 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through- Secretary, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Director, Panchayat S Social Welfare, District- Jashpur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) Gram Panchayat Pithama, through its Sarpanch, Pithama, Block Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) Memo of Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisaarh HiahCourt (Appeal to Division Benchl Act 2006 Present: Shri Sandeep Dubey, counsel for the appellant / petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORDER (7th March, 2008) The foliowing order of the Court was passed Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admisslon. i 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 26th February 2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.1127/08. 3. The appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition for the /ina retiefs:- ^ "7.1 That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records. 7.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of certiorari for quashing the resolution dated 30/1/08 (ANNEXURE P/4) and order dated of Sarpanch without (ANNEXURE P/7t and order dated 30/1/08, 2/2/08 and issued by Respondent No.3 (ANNEXURE P/8. P/9. P/10) with a further direction to allow the petitioner to continue at the present place and post and to get monthly salary. 7.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be further pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to discontinue the petitioner from the present place and post without following the procedure prescribed undertheRules1999. 7.4 Any other relief; which Hon'ble Court deems flt proper of the case, may be allowed. 7.5 Cost of the petition may also be given." 4. The appellanVpetitioner thus, in substance was seeking quashing of the resolution dated 30 January 2008 Annexure P-4 and the orders dated 30th January 2008 and 2nd February 2008 issued by C.E.O, Janpad Panchayat, Pathalgaon, District-Jashpur. __ x^ IM It 1 ^SSS'h. I '"saasst, a '%>. 1!?»*'". "%s£s.3.f !tlJ Padma 5. Learned Single Judge found that the orders impugned by the writ petitioner in the writ petition were appealable under Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules 1995"). Learned Single Judge, therefore, declined to entertain the writ petition in view of the availability of the aiternative efficacious remedy to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner could not dispute that the orders impugned in the writ petition are appealable under Rule 3-ofthe Rutes,1995. 7. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ appeal. 8. The writ appeal, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice I ^t 1 's^