c* J. \G ,/. / a'a "^i^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / Writ Petition No. Y2> (s^J of 2004 / PETITIONER ....y ^^••' f\^ ^7V',^-^ ^^•< ^/^\/y .<?yi^' <?~" J?" / ^•^ Sahu Tiinber Trading Coinpany Through Partner Suresh Kumar Sahu, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Sahu, R/o Pendra, Tabsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1 State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Ministry of Forest D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Forest Officer Marvahi forest division, Pendra Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Conservator of Forest Prescribed appellate authority. Bilaspur (C.G.) ':SI„„„.„,.„.^..». CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE DIRECTIONS. ORDERS OR WRITS INCLUDING WRITS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC. The__h_umbl<! iir XI-HC-22 STf^I^I It;-fi.<* sn^r sh^fqi yf?c( ~s^i':wvpf, afll'a'is, Iwirey sniOT TRraR ijj.p.Uo. \368l Z^o/ ^.................................... . ^Qy NIHCTI gillWi ftre^sr' aiT^i^araT^iftn 2.7.2004 tfats Maratahi fitr firie Petitkiner by Shri B. L. State byShri U. N. S. Deo,| Hcard on adxnissioa. The petitioacr has filed of the Constitutfon of India, dt 7.2.2004 (Annexure P/l) Divisional Porest Officer, petitioncr has bcca suspcaded to 31" December, 2004 and a and some forest wood as confiscated. Leanied counsel for tbe order dt 7.2.2004 the petitione^ beforc fhe AppeUate Authorily Leamed counsel for the AppeUate Autfaority neither appeal therefore in the given this pctithan. Having heard learaed regard to the facts and would serve the purpose ofthe is directed to decide the this writ petition is disposcd Respondent No.3 Conservator ofl Det|ibhra, pctition under Articlc 226/227 beiug a^rieved by thc order ^assed by fhe Respondent No.2 wherebv the Ucence of the =hl'i|f<-1'fl-1 ^WvS ^ fSVS <la|«4K ^? srfSgH sn^i Advocate. ^ Gkwt. Advocate. onc ycar &OECL Ist Jaauaiy 2004 .h < ^aa«l ofRs.SOOO/- metntioned in fhe order was also St^te subniits fbat aggrieved by fhe has already preferred aa appeal wh^ch is stitl pcndmg. peftitioner subinits that because the de^iding his stay application nor sittiatioa he has been forced to file coi.^nsel for thc parties aad haviag Gircumst^tnces of the case in my opinion it pjetitioner if fhe AppeUate Authority stay appjication aad the appeaL Therefore, |of with the direction that the Porest to dccide the appeal fited XI-HC-22 -ys^ ^iwiv\tt, ii'dl'y'id, fawi'My t^3 , P . !^> STT^T ^^7 \368 flTWIT tbHrcb •L<yo- 'M 200 1^5^I' an^l^T W* s^ 5h^ich ^rfi^T 3ii^i ^rgrw ^fiCT -z psy tbe petitioner wifbia a period |subnussion of the certified copy of |half of the suspcnsion pcriod has i ^ny re^on it is aot possibte to |ienod then he should positivefy ^arfy as possibte not later fhaa the Parties are entitled fbr certifcfl df decjde cbl-4^4lT1 'RTO^f ^ 1^T3t <r<fl^R ^srfigiTSii^r oiie niontfa fixiin ffae date of |this order by fhe petitioner, as ^lready bcen passcd aad if for the appeal within the above ^ecide the stay appUcation as (bove prescribed period. copy offb.^ order. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge B8