S1N6LE BENCH ^ ^f&' ^^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF •JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR LC W.pyNO. S'2>ri-1 / 2006 i^etitiouer '. .*•• .,*' \<lfc...-^-"* ^9^-' ^ll^--^ ^y^ '^y Versus Aiay Yadav S/o .E?i3iri yrilssii Ysdi^y. Aged about .32 years, K/o Kotratiit P'resently residuig at Wa.dra.f Na_sa.r, Tehsi' — Wa.dnif M^.^^.0 r^.^^^- . o^^-^..^^'^ //~t n. \ Ncl^cu., A-/l£>t . Ocu.guja.-i^/.vJ.) Kespondents ytate ot (jmiatUsgarfa Through The Secretary Departmeiit of PaEichayat U.K.y. yi-iawan Mautralaya, Raipur, Dist : Rainur-(C-0.5 The Director ranctiayat Kaipur, Uist : Kaipur- 'C.G.) f -•'i v^l &0,f< ^^ d^^' ^.3. ^A. /5. fi -•7. 'l'Jie Coltector, nia i)ist * S?r?TniR-{(. fr ! £*"j"l-7 •—'^•"'i-• t^-.i-.-E.^.-^i'"^ ^^/.v^;.^- 'i'tic t/itict ij.-xecuUve Otticer. Janpad panchayat. V/adruf Nagsr, Tehsfl - Wadruf Nagar, Uist: yarguja-jC.'j.) The Tehsildar Wadrut INagar, Dist: Sarguja-(C.G) Abtusi'ieJt Yadav y/o ytin Aisaac! Yadav, R./o Kotralii, Tehsil - Wadruf Nagar, Dist: yarguja-(C.U.| -M.SJ'lCfi.QJ'SJl jvU Si-tWOJ"lS_ y/o Nanku Kam R/o ViHage PedRn', TI^UT^I _ \JTn/s^-.-.f M^i--.?o^ 1 C-i-l.OU. " VV'ci.Ui-U.A l^ica.gcU., Dist: Sarguja-cC.G.) r wrar pETmuM^ZAMb^227uE E£OHg2IIUii^ ^s'n-e&cg)^ XI-HC-22 sn^r^f f^IRIW^T sfitliti •Hf?cT •CKnitt- ^ ^ ^ ^ 3^ ^ww^, E?Tf1«'i(S, Riiviwy 3ll^l Macb —..fc/.:P..-..^<?.?rJ. Kl^rtl fhWch ••••••••••••••••••••• y^ 200 sn^T?TaraTH^ 13.9.2006 Petitioner by Shri RaahavtendraPradhan, Advocate. State/respondents No. I Govemment Advocate. Heard. By wav of this writ petitiort of order dated 14.8.2006(Annex(ire P-1), passed by respondent No.2, The Director Panchayat Raipur in P^nchayat appeal No.76/A-89/05-06. A perusat of the order ^ould show that against the order dated 26.06.2CM6, passed by the Di^trict Collector, Ambikapur in Panchayat case No.9/8-121/04-05, the petjtioner has preferrecf the aforesaid appeal before the appellate authoritv preferred by the petitioner in the the eariiest. This limited prayer made appellate authority shall fry to d copyofwritpetition. ^irafwft? wRft'ff fecA" ^Tsrf^TSTI^T 2, 3 and 5 by Shri Sushil Dubev, , the petitioner has challenged the validihf i.e. resDondent No.2. The aopetlate authority, after hearing the paijties, has dismissed the stay application Isaid apDeal. Learned counsel for the t'etitioner submite ttet the appeal itsetf is listed for hearing on today i.e. 15.9.2006, but it is likely to be adjourned as it has already been adjoumed oih an earlier occasion. He makes a limited prayer that the appetlate authorjty be directed to dispose of the appeal at |3y learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by learned counsel for the State. It is directed that in the fects and cireumstances of the case, the Ispose of this apDsal at th®eariiest, if the appeal is not disposed of as dn today, preferablv within a period of >3 months from the date of produtttion of certified copy of this order and a Sdf- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge r1