@ 3’ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1895 of 2009 Rakesh Roshan Yadav, aged about 35 yeaxs, Late Radhe Shyam Yadav, R/o Village Kudri, Janpad Panchaya't Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa. Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D K S Bhawan, Rapur Asslstant Dn'ector (Panchayat) Panchayat and Socmal Welfam, Rmpur 3. Raju Yadav, aged about 32 years, S/o Dhnnsay Yadav, R/o Village Kuén‘, Janpad Panchayat Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa. {‘5 WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.‘ (SB: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shn' Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner Shn‘ Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the espondents No. 1 and 2/ State. 0 R D E R (Passed on this 11th Day ofApril, 2009) " With the consent of learned counsel appealing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1.. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Dixector, Panchayat, by order dated 26.12.2007 (Annexure P/3) dismissed the mvision hled by the mspondent No.3. Thereaher, the respondent No.3 has preferred a second revision before the Secretaiy; Department of Panchayat, Government of Chhattisgarh, which is not maintainable under the provisions of law. Thus, this petition for quashing of the second mvisbn. 2. ’I‘o substantiate his submission, learned counsel appearing for the pedtioner, relies on a judgmentand order of this Court: in ,. / 2 . I Pritram 'sahu Vs. State of (LG. & otheul, wherein it is held that in View of the provisions of Rulc 5 of the Chhatu'sgarh Panchayat (Appeal 8s Ravision) Rules, 1995 the second revision is impermissible before the State Government, the Commissioner, the Director of Panchayat and the Collector. “In the present case the Commissioner had already exercised the revisiona] powers, therefore, in my opinion no second revision was permissible before the Secretary.” Be that as it may, since the second revision, filed by the mspondent No.3 before the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, is pending consideration, the petitioner may very well nle his reply, opposing maintainability, stating that the law with regard to maintainability of second revision has already been settled by this Court in the above cited decision (Pritx Sahu). At this stage, neither it is proper nor is it expedient to interfere with thenling of second revision, as no order is passed by the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, on the maintainability of the second revision. Thus, the petition is premature. With the above observation this petition is dismissed, summarily. d Sd/- k, i Satish K.Agnihotri i Judge V i i . l {2005(2) C.G.L.J. 49} j