—> c ,s •\oal IN THB HIGH COBRT OF JUDICATURB (M CHHATTISGARH AT BILPASPBR WRIT_PETITK»rNoZL H6'^/2005 Deo Prasad Mahipal S/0- Gangadhar --d? Aged about 28 years R/0- Village Sarwa, >Block- Kasdol Oistt- Raipur (C.G.) 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through:- Director, Panchayat Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) c\^w R.G-^?^STOS^2) Gollector, Disft- Raipur (C.,G.) ^3) Sarpaneh, Graa Panchayat, Sarwa Block- Kasdol Distt- Raipur (C. G.) E>ETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 226^7 QF THE(X)NSTITU1'IQN OF INDIA FC» ISSUEM}(:aB_J:E_jyPRROP^ ORDER(S) OR DIRECTIQN (S) lyl XI-HC-22 sn^rw f^fTTsn^r sbii* «Rn •3-- HTOpirsniich 3:B''<iii«:w,siTn'y'is, Iqfliuy 3(1^1 Haqi .hf.;f.-..J.J.^. Wq; 200S Sfl^l S'KllWHte' 29.3.2005 Shri Virendia Sharma, Shri Sandcep Dube|y, State/respondcnts 1 & 2. > » Hcaid. The prcsent petitfon order dated 9.2.2005 (Aua|exure Panchayat has dismissed th|e in filu^ the appeal axid ia appeal fited by the pctitioner^ Leamed coiinsel for Ifae 1cozmsel for the petitioiier. jy, Oovefiunent Advocate for the othet-s dated 17.1.2002 was passe<|t appcal 'beaaag No. 75/A-8p State of CUiattisgarh & Director Paachayat, Raipur (| Leanaed coiinscl for thfc wifh fhe nienao of appeal a4 was also fited aad the Dirtfc order datcd 9.2.2005, where »i<itit<fl-i*ii>iciT^fec^'<Ri<<ii< ^srf^iran^r ^as been fited agaiast tfa®impugned P-1) by whxsh, tfae Daiector applicatfon for condonation ofdelay |consequence, has also dtemissed fte IRie pctLtfoner submits fhat the oider by the CoBector agaiast Which, fhis 8p/2004-05, Deo Piasad Mahipal v/s was fited by fhe pctituaicr bcfore (he ;.G.) (the appellate authori^). peti.tkaicr furfher subinfts fhat atong appBcation for coadonation of delay rejctor Psaactisyat ysaed the iinpugncd >y fhe said applk»tioafor condoaation A- liAUItiiii) XI-HC-22 sn^r^r (N^sn^T aiw»yRa ^ tfiini a>«ii;n 'SSf ^W\V\^, BTfld'IS, (sKII+iy 3)1^1 <^;|ch m? ••••••••••••••••••••• gq; 200 3<i^i (kiiwflfer —2-- of delay was dismissed and pctitioiierw^ dismissed as I have perused the oxder wluch does not give t condonatioa ofdelay has 1,>e^ If is a setfed law ttiat iai ^fltimatety the entiae appeal fited by fhe |)mred by limMation. impugried. The ordcr is a criptfa; ^easons as to why the appUcation for dismissed by fhe aufhorily. oilder etta case of Jleoto»u»lJUtoi«Bew JBottI-aI wide tNira JO reookted in AIR 2003 SC 1462. lafr If tttis' prineiple of impugncd otder cannot be touchcs the lactoffhe case why fhe application for coiidi The petitk>n is allowed matter is icxnanded back +i.'ifcf'sn-i ii^dTffrs'-tfl <Ri'wi< ^3Tf^IT 311^1 tlie rcasons are Uve Imks between tUe mind of the dccision talEer 1|o tUe controversy ia question and the decision or conclusion aarw^d afc Failure to gwe reasons aaiouats to dcnial ofjustice. (Ptease s^e Atocander MuehinerB fltuBew X.td. Vs. CrvOltree 1974 LClt ISXft which has also becn refen?ed in fhe . KRSRTC. WAWAS emd others Vs. is applied, it m apparent that the bustained as fhe same cven does not ^nd has not assigncd any reason as to <t»nationis dismissed. Thc tmpugned order is set aside. Thie jbo the concemcd aathority (Dwector ll.i-1, !ii,)-i,it, XI-HC-22 sn^frw f^TOisn^r »t< Hi?(T 9il1 '<3 sunita s^ r^wtvi^,.^fl'y'iti, (sidi'My Sii^iMacft «wviisnij^ .•••••••••••••••••••• g^ 200 sfi^i ^•wiwafer —^— Panchayat) for heariag on re^soncd order in fhis regard. 1 Consequen^, M.W.P.l for zugent hearing atoo staad Ctertified copy as per rvdps +i<iiT<-i41-f ^i^cil'ilrrs'iO <Ri^i< ^sif^ffsn^r aj^plication of limitation and passing a I|Io.925/^X)5 and I.A.No.2218/20C® flisposed of. No <ader as to oost sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge