t^-,^1 ^' SWGLEBEMCH y IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2.S M3 OF 2011 SERVICE MATTER WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER PETITIONER Laxman Telam, S/o Late Shri Budhu Telam, aged about '^^\^o^-'lA""U'^ ^7 ^ears[ 1'erminate(l Secretary at Gram H/7 .,-^,.^.-^'^-- Panchayat Chinger, Janpad Panchayat ••"^^'f\<«^...'- Bhairamgarh, Tahsil and District - c."!: ^. -^ I*' ^<< ,*• ^"" RESPONDENTS Beejapur, (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh) 2. The Collector, Beejapur, District - Beejapur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bhairamgarh, District - Beejapur (Chhattisgarh) 4. Gram Panchayat : Through - Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bh'Qiro^arh-, District - Beejapur (Chhattisgarh) DETAILS OF THE PETITION 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS As mentioned above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARSOFTHERESPONDENTS Asstated in the above cause title. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WR1T PETITION (S'i No. 2345 of 2011 PETITIONER : Koushal Prasad Patel RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & others PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2347 of 2011 Sukhoram Poyami VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & others RESPONDENTS : WRIT PETiTION (S) No. 2349 of 2011 PETITIONER : LaxmanTelam RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisaarh & others WRIT PETITION fS) No. 2348 of2011 PETITIONER : Vinod Nag VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present: Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushi! Dubey, G.A. for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on 02ntj day of May, 2011) At the very outset, iearned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is a provision to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the authority passing the order is in question, thus, the appeal is not maintainable. There are several cases, which have been settled by this Court, thus, these petitions may also be entertained and order may be passed in the same manner. -9- 3. The contention of learned counsel fails on a simple ground that if a principle of law has been settied by the High Court or by the S.upreme Court, it is not necessary to give a go-bye to the statutory provisions. There is no extra ordinary circumstances which necessitate entertaining these petitions; as the petitioners can raise allthe arievances raised herein before the Appeiiate authority aiso. 4. Thus, these Detitions are dismissed as not maintaina&le.'' > However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to the appropriate statutory fomm, if so advised. Sd/- S.K. Agnihotri Judge Priya