< ^ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.0.1 WRTT PETITION fS) N0. %<S\ G /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ Tarun Kumar Jaiswal S/o Sri B.L.Jaiswal, Aged-about 37 years, R/o Vill^e- Gudi, Post-Gudi, Thana- Sipat, TahsU-Masturi, Distt.- BUaspur.[C.G.] VERSUS y l.StateofChhatdsgarh ^•••']\</Through- Secretary, Panchayat and 't3''\}^.-y'./> Rural development Department ''>•'. ^ ^••^.-^)^ ^.s» ^A--' •^. ..^c^ ..-••^ \.-^ ____--, •w D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] ,^'2. Chief Executive ofEcer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.] - 3. Block Eklucation OfGcer Mastajri, Distt.-Baaspur[C.G.] 1 WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS <a<L C—78 sn^i w W ^sff-3TT^?r 9RN? - ^ ^ HWW «KW«f> 3~sr—4l-4lM':1,yTll+1'Ko, fs|c)l'M^< ^...^.f..S^....l£..U^ SfTI^T'q^i'C'^f^SI^) e«ii<R^lfriT 311^1 SB: Hon'bte Muri Mantaidra Mo; 28.6.2010 Shri Saajay Patel, eounscl| SIiri Bhaskar Payasi, Pa4el copy. Heard. By this petitioa, fhc petil dated 29.5.2009 (Aimexure P-3)j 17.5,2010. Thougfa it is not remedy of appeal against the i(4 the provision contained in Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Ri^ couasel for fhe pctitioner is fhaf of iiatiiral justice and therefore thls Court. The impugned order petitioner on 7.3.2009, which leamed coiiasel for fhe petitionf the petitioner. In thc above 4 question of fact whether noticej would bc appropriate to relet Authority for decisfon of fhe enw.my.- - . 4>i^fi^n ^W^f 'sf ^W^ <^^.l^ i? arRw ai^r ,an SIu-ivastawa, J. for ttic petitioner. Lawyer for tiic State, on advance ^oaer seeks to assaB validily, of ordcr I aUegedIy received by fhe petiti&ner oa ^isputed that there esxist a statutoiy [4pugned order dated 29.5.2009, imder Panchayat (Appeal & Revteion) |fes of 2995"), subiatesion of learaed there has been violation of principks jthis pefltion has been preferred befi>re Chhaftisgarh reatrds fhat a notice was issucd to tfae was not respanded to. Subinission of sr is fhat no such notice was given to ;ircumsteace, it itsetf te a disputed was seryal or not, aad, therefore, it ^ate the petitioner to fhe AppeBate aforesaid aspect ia an appropriate ..•'''a'-"^ ^ E lsi^ft ;i; u ,3" ^-XI-HC—78 ^^ '3ST '<i|<l|d<<, ®il|^<]S,fsKfl'My *II*ICTI a»*<i^> •WI. 200 sn^r'qx?? ('^3^?) sf^vw R-ii* 'cWT 3ff^T sti*iich Praweea ippe^l 1&95. Accordiagly, fhis petition is| petitioner to prefer an appe^l constituted under fhe Rules of constituted appeal bcfore fhe ApF|cUate Aufhorily days 6x>m. today, the Appcltete own merits wifhout goiag iato the| 1 finally dfeposed off'wifli Uberty to the before the AppcBate Authorily 1. In case, fhe pctitioner ffles dufy )F|cUate Aufhorily, wlttua a period of30 A|ufhority shaU decide tfae sanae oa its I questlon of Uimtation. *Wfd<il"1 NWrtf tf ft^t <fat<;i< ^aiSmsn^'ff Mani&d(a?Aoban ludSC StitWa'stava