yV (\‘Q‘ 0’ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ‘ 2438 WRIT PETITION NOW /2004 PETITIONER Tarkeshwar Prasad IS/o Janak Prasad Upadhyay R/o Village Pahra, P.O. Gondgiri, Block Dhamd, istrict Durg, (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS . State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Social Welfae D.K. S. Bhawan, Matralaya Raipu (Chhattisgarh) Collector, Durg Dictrict Durg (Chhattisgarh) Deputy Director, Department of nchayat & Social Welfare, District Durg (Chhtisgarh) at ‘4. Chief xecutive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Dh ‘ Block Durg amdha, x (Chhattisgarh) District 5. Gram>Pachayat Pahra Through Sarpanch, Village Eahra, PO Gondgiri, Block Dhadha, Dictrict Dur m g (Chhattisgarh) ha D l r n r Pa E n 6. Shri Atmaram S/o Manglu Ram Verma Village Hathkhoj, Block Patan, (Chhattisgarh) District Durg WWW‘DNO24‘3g2W4‘E zoo 311%?! m (W) WWW mmm mm£fwm aEwm 02-02—2605 Shri Ji’rendm Pali, !eamed counsel for ‘Hwe pe‘l’i‘rioner. Shri JD. Bajpai, iearned Gcw. Advoca‘fe for The Sfafel' respondems No. 1, 2 and3. Heard By way of fhis pe'ri‘l'icn, The pe‘ri‘rioner‘ has challenged The appoinl‘mem of respondenf No.6 (A‘l'mamm) as Panchayaf Kahmi/5ecre'mry of Gram Panchayaf, Pahm. The claim of fhe pefifioner is Thaf he was a bef‘mr candidafe Than responder}? No.6 and he should have been appoin‘red in place of responden‘i’ Nolé. On fhe lasf dafe of hearing, Time was gra'red 1'0 learned counsel for fhe pefifioner for examining as fo whefher sfafu'rory remedy f0 prefer appeal is available fa :l’he pefifioner or no‘r ? Learned counsel for fhe peii'fioner submi‘rs fha‘r fhe order of appoin‘rmenf of responder}? No.6 as well as non consideration of The pefifioner’s candidafure can ‘ be challenged before The appellafe aufhorify under ‘l'he Chlhaf'risgarh Panchayaj’, (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. Since here is an alfernafive remedy» of appeal, learned counsel for The pefi’rioner seeks permission f0 , wJ“ Gx‘ pRI~—FS/3SO— 1 2/2000—50,000. (k XI-HCv-J 8 M4). Mo 243% £m4 : WE‘aw 'q‘xaw‘ (Ema) WW wra‘f t¥ fgrc‘T WK $37 aifan 3mm wi‘rhdmw This pefi‘rion wiTh a iiber f0 file an appea! before The compeTem‘ au‘rhori‘ry. Learned counsel for The pe i‘rioner also submh‘s fhal' The ’ period of limifa’rion has already been elapsed, Therefore, a dlrecfion be issued for consi rafion of his prayer for condona‘iion of delay on The 9ro nd of pendency of fhis wri‘l’ pefi‘i‘ion‘ Needless ’ro say fha‘l fhe!e is already a provision for .condonai'ion of delay in filing fh appeal by filing appropria're applica’rion. If fhe appeal is file alongwi‘rh an applica'rion for condona‘fion of delay, The au‘ih rh‘y may en‘rerfain such an applica‘iion and decide fhe some in a cordance wi‘rh law. Wifh fhe aforesaid observa ions she pe‘rifion sfands finally disposed of as wifhdrawn wi‘rh fhlz aforesaid liber‘ry granted To fhe pe‘rifioner. Consequenfly, M.(W).P.No.2153/2004 & I.A.No.5473/2004 also sTand disposed of. §waa Em Wm -2,- Par‘ries are en‘ri‘rled for cerTi'Fied wof This order. Sd/— $unil Kumar Sinha Judge