t c c.<S.\°^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION No. F74) /2004 1. Dinesh SinghThakur, S/o- Bodhi Singh Thakur; Aged about 36 Years, R/o- Nariara, P.0. Ganoud, /Distt. Raipur.CG. 2. i VtjayTarak, S/o- Dayaram Tarak, Aged about 36 Years, R/o- Gram-Kosamldiuta, P.0. Ganoud, Distt. Raipur, CG. _^l^---....-.». ^^ss?^ Ptesente^bv ^M-—•" PETITIONERS VERSUS / State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Director, Panchayat, Mantralaya, Raipur, CG. RESPONDENT WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE ,^,OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS OR APPROPRIATE DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS ^^ XI-HC-22 sn^r'^T ^\^ ^^ ^^icr? «^a ^•- ^'> T5? ^t^ld^l, ^Tll^Ko) {c«11^1< WHCTT^NIch 31T^T XRT5R ^...1»?.:.:.(>.:.^..J.7; ^\/OLf •M 200 fcK-x^T* ^n^r'^n'WHter 7-7-2004 Shri ParikaJ Shrivastava^ Advoc ite for the petitioners. Shri Alok Bakshi, Panel Lawye^ for Ifae State With consent, heard finaJly. This petition under Article 226/1 beeai filed against the order dated 28-1-J2 Panchayat, whereby Brieffacts offhe case are thatl tiie Additional Collector (Panchayat), dated 19-8-2002. Agamst the ordet- preferred a revision petition before the| D applic^tion under Section 5 ofthe By the impugned order, the revision rejected. Counsel for Ifae petitiona- condonation of delay wa<s flted on the| affidavit and doctors report was also fil4d. The q>plication for condonatioi^ side. Th©leamed Direotor (P<mchaya|t) to fhe conclusion that ifae petitioners delay oftliree monthsand h&s rejected i chl^fd^l'l 'RFI^if ^ f^t Tf^$R ^'^rf^FT^fr^T i27 ofthe Constitution oflndia has IQ04 passedbythe Director, |the petitioner filed a petition before (taipur wliich was rejected vide order dated 19-8-2002, fhe petftioner before thej Director (Panchayat) along with an Lin^tation Act for condonation ofdelay. jand the said application have been s^ibmitfed that the application for 1 ground of cfelay and in support, an ialsofil4d. ofdelay was opposed by ihe otfier after hearing tfae partieshasi come [have failed to show the ^ound of tfie revision on the ground ofdelay. [^tstfe^ XI-HC-22 3n^T^T ^iph ^TT^T st)^i<^ <il^a ^^. ^' ^? ^i^i<n<<, ^'al^-'Ko, fadi^y 3n^?T 'q?ra? ^l^c^l ^Hlcb'**' '**%^ 200 'f^^r' ^ST ?^IT^R ^Tf^T Having considered the facts matwial on record^ in fhe opinion sickness ouj^rt to have been condon^d mala fide. Aparty shouldnot sufifer| tacts and circumstances of fhe case, 2004 passed by Ihe Director Panc^iayat remanded back to the Director shall be heard afresh by the Director (|1 The petidon is accordingly disj Certified copy as per mles. CM^<fl-i w^i ^ f^st <F3i^« ^'^rf^m^n^T land circumstances of tfae case and ofjthis Court, the delay on the 0>ound of in ihe ends ofjustice. There is no |and liberal approach, considering the |may be takea. The order dated 28-1- is set aside and the matter is Paajchayat for consideration. The matter (|Panchayat) afresh. ibosed of. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge