IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSeARH AT BILASPUR (C.fi,} W.P. (U. Art 227) No. ^^°2- of 2009 PETETEONER/ Appellant -•••^J ^p--" ^:^Kry> v U-:' .-••' ..^'•"" % ^" ."f^ t/a.^ s^<\ hv""" >9-s/-- RESPONDENTS Chhotelal Sharma, S/o Late Shn' Yadav Prasad Sharma, aged about 75 years, R/o Village Sukali, Tahsil- Janjgir, at present Vivek Bhawan, Kelabadi, burg, Tahsil & District- Durg (C.6.) VERSUS cc,, ^ ^••\. President Karmachan' 6n'h Nirman Sahakari Sanstha, Maryadit Janjgir, bistrict-Janjgir (C.6.) 2- Shivkumar Sharma, S/o Late Futu Lal Sharma, R/o Indian Art, Bhatapara, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3- Sarla, b/o Saheb Lal, self & power of attomey Om C/o Prafulla Kumar and Pramod Kumar, S/o Saheb Lal, R/o Madhubanpara, Raigarh (C.6.) 4. yc'^ ".^^ >sb^' Shyam Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Ramlakhan Sharma & on behalf of Bharat Lal, S/o Late Yadav Prasad Sharma Purshottam Prasad, S/o (2) 5. 6. ^7. ^-8. Yadav Prasad and Ramkumar S/o Ramlakhan Sharma, R/o Sadar Bazar, Champa, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.6.) Revenue Inspector, Revenue Circuit Board, Janjgir (C.6.) Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Pendri, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) Secretar-y, Viltage Panchayat Pendri, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTECLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ i -^wicra, e>Ti1<-iiis, 'feirey arr^T xra^ ^..^.:.^?l.^.:.^^:e/0^ WKtr *<<i<*) snt^i^ f?;IR;3II^i ^i1^"^ft?T | 3fl^I ?S!IWHf?3 SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan ShI'ivastava. J. subrrlits 22-04-2010 Shri B. L Dembra, counsel for the| None for respondents No.1 to 3 Respondent No.4 has not been Shri Vinod Tekam, Panef Lawyer Heard. Leamed counsel for the petition^r passed by this Court on 27-08-200p, respondents by ordinary post. He the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, had remained ex parte. He further interested. Considering the nature of dispul considering that respondent No.4 thou^h case, was considered on merits. This petition has been filed which, petitioner's application for restor^ the Additional Commissioner. Submission of learned counsel fot representing the petitioner was regularlj/ i Commissioner. On 17-02-2009, the direoted issuance of notice to unserveill directed to be listed on 18-03-2009. Orj appellant was not present, revision applioation, it was stated that the again^t VFVKPfR tIIlRlf ^ ftl7t <r<1<il< ^7 3lfStTq 3Iltn petitioner. ai|id 5 to 7, though served. s^rved. pr the State/respondent No.8. submits that pursuant to order notices were issued to the that jn the pnoceedings before respondent No.4 though sewed, sutjmits that respondent No.4 is not |e brought before this Court and sewed, remained ex parte, the the order dated 02-05-2009, by ition of the case was rejected by the petitioner is that the counsel appearing before the Additionai Apditional Commissioner, Bilaspur respondents and the case was that date, as the counsel for the dismissed. In the restoration for the petitioner, who was wBs couhsel ^ff^^T^. .^"^^: fr^ .^T sn^i-^; ^3T[^T stillli^T!?^ ^er '::2TPTRTEf, Sxil^.is, 'fsi-clOTp: UJ,P- ^I^-INO, '-(^oyzoo^ SE----S~--'-------^ 208- sii^iwwaf^i -7-- qinfin'^i tiwflT'^'is'st'duttel' i?3if^T 311^1 regularly appearing in the case, coul with a friend for his treatment. A perusal of the Impugned Commissioner has rejected the appli other oounsel, who were also authi vakalatnama. Thus, approach of the not appear as he had gone along order shows that the Additional ation on the ground of absence of rized for their appearance as per learned Additional Commissioner is not correct. From the order sheets oh record, it is found that one Vivek Sharma was the oounsel, who was a^pearing in the oase throughout. 1t is not a case that on number of occasior) case was listed on 18-03-2009 for co| issued to the respondents on earlier d^ All these releyant considerations werj Commissioner while rejeoting the applj In view of the above discussl sustained as it results in manifest injuj tHe impugned order dated 02-05-200^ Authority-the Additional Commissionet the petitioner on its merits. In view of foregoing, the petitioi)i Is, no representation was made. The hsideration of case, as notices vvere ate. It was not even listed for hearing. not kept in mind by the Additional ;ation for restoration. on, the impugned order cannot be stice to the petitioner. Consequently, is^hereby Set aside. The Revisional Bilaspur shall consider the case of is flnally disposed of. Tumane SdA ^ iManindra Mohan Shrivastavaj Judge |