’ UR Writ Petition No 2621 of2005 Petitioner ay aged about 4O years, S/o Respcndent Amarsai, By Caste Nagwanshi, R/o Village No.1 Pakargaon, Tahsil Pahalgaon, Distt. Jashpur Versus Respondents 1, Patiyaro Ba Lakd aged out 45 yeaxs, W/o hru Lakda, By Caste Urav, Village Pakargaon, Tahsil Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur. Pair, aged about 27 year, Sio Rajiya, By Caste urav, R/o Turwaama, Post Pakargaon, Tahsil Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur. '2. 3. Pxesiding Omcer Pooling Booth No.65, Shri Devendxa‘hawati, 'U. a. Shi. Madhyamik Shala, Kopa, Presiding Omcer Pooling Booth No.66, Shri 4. A. alkho, U.Va.Shi. Madhyamjk Shala, Kodopara. 5. Presiding Offlcer Pooling Booth No.67, Shn' Padumram Paikm, U.Va.Sh. Madhyamik Shala, Kodopara. 6. Presiding Officer Pooling Booth No.68, Shri Tobas Minj, U.Va.Shi. Kanya Shala, Shaini‘ Resi onicer Pooling Booth No.69, Shri K.S.Toppo, .a. Shi. High School, Padrapath Respondent o. 3 to 7 ’I‘ahsil Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (0G,) 8. Returning OEicer, Panchayat Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur. ‘ . The Sub Divisio O$cer (Revenue) Patalgaon, Distt. Jashpur 10. The Collector, Jashpur J\ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 85 227‘ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hoh’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihoni J.) Shri Pamg Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shli Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Manoj Paianjpe, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 to 7. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 9 (Sn 10. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISGARH : BILASP Ud Ram, t i a. ab Ne team s 'l V Kh i iy ding UV N 9 nal h ORDER (Passed on this 22nd day of October, 2008) The petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the onier dated 6.5.2005, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patthalgaon, District Jashpur as well as the cider dated 30.5.2005 (Annexme P/ 5), passed by the Collector, Jashpur. 'By the impugned order dated 30.5.2005 (Annexule P] 5), the Collector declined to entertain the revision on the gmund that certified copy of the Older dated 6.5.2005 was not tiled by the petitioner. Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner submits that the peu'tioner has applied on 19.5.2005(An11exum P/ 4) for supply of the cerh'hed copy of the order dated 6.5.2005, but the same has not yet been supplied by the concerned authority. Learned counsel appearing for the Iespondent No. 1,‘who is the election petitioner, submits that the pendency of this petition may unnecessarily delay the proceedings pending before the authority below, thus the impugned order dated 6.5.2005 and 30.5.2005 may be set aside and the concerned authority may be directed to proceed with the case, in accordance with lawn “expeditiously. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts situation of.the case, the impugned order dated 30.5.2005 (Annexure P/ 4) is set aside. The concerned authority/respondent No.9 is directed to proceed with the matter, as if the order dated 6.5.2005 was not passed. The concerned authority shall consider and decEe the proceedings pending before it in accordance with law, on its own merits, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy ofthis order. In view of the foregoing this petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. \ / Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur ‘