SagS'SSBtilHiH'BH :^^%f?f^i^^@^;MI SSSi BEIi^RE^^E HONBEE^IQHCQURTOFCHBA'BBSGrtiiffiaa :'BIIiASPUR- . -.. '. :-:::.'.:^ ^'^^^S^^M ^^•i^'^^JI^tl^ t^.!:^;ll?II^iJ^fli PETITIONER WRm'En'FIONfC.lW). /.. ,/3QQ8 S%. Bi if@s Ssiei1'—1 1^%^ ^" RESPONDENTS /l. SamF>atLalQolel:iha,;aged;:ab!out®3£; years, Sbn of Sfari Chliegala3jai^ ^QoIcKha, Main Rbad, KQndgaQi'i, Tah.Koridagaon, Distt. Bastar(eG:) ? VERSUS , ...: • . , .::-.: '"^ :; ;:-ii State M eiiiaattisgarh, thrc)ugh , . r the;Secretary,E>epaflmentl(l)f¥'orest;^ I?au Kalyan Sihgh BIiawan, Raipurl; ^^ N^ 'ti. M ^.^v';:/;^ ®onsei-vator o! ;; Foresf.:,,;: •Kanker^ a|t^®ratt.Kanker:^)(^:';'..',|l.^..,^^ ^0iMsi^aaI:' ^•Ferest.. .@|EtGer,;'hiB'oresfe ©ivision.^;{E>FOct;); BBatiapra(^)ip|iiir^ :IMstt.:Kanken(eG);: ^;.. ;• :.:..y,. .^:;::^ WRI"['^E'I'I'EI0N.^IN'E>ER^R'FI©£E:2^6!/(3270RTH@ EQNSHCTilQffiWlNBIA »fm su '^'^^ 1111 fllfiS ,||||g MtHB •^ .!,..-: 1!S:; HIGH COUKI OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP12& WRIT PETmQN (C) No. 4326 of2008 PETmONER : SampatLaKjolchfaa. VERSUS ; State ofChhattisgaTfa&Ofllers. RESPONDENTS WRTT PETmON UNBER^AKI'IGLE 22&227»DE'FHEeCtNSTmJTION OE ^•':?::IN0I^::i':'.:°l:::.';^ .':;,:::: ';:::;:; •^y^^y'' SB:JEIon'Ufe^airi8atisIiK.AgnflM>faa.,I. Present: Shn Prafcasfc^gE'Myai^ Ikidvo^^ Shri SliaslMnl&TKaKi^ Paaell.awyer^t^^State/resp(»<^^ JOaEBXERfORAD : •.;,:; .'. . -:::';'. / (Sas^sm^^i^Jw^'lE^ Learned ccmns^a^earmgfbf^pei^qners^^ bemg^gi^ved1)Y,theQrdeTdated 26.04.1988 (Aimexi^ by the respondeiit ^. 3, p^^ respondentNo. 2 <m 31^8,1988. Ther^cmdent^^N^ Forest, Kanker Cin^ ^(^out takmg^^^a^ vrithout considenng^ th®appe^;|jQ^ 04.10.200'? (Annexure 1^1), aftCT^ p^oj^;af'il9 ^ajgi^ fiioni llie date of; filing of the appeal on tthe g'eun^ ;1jhat; the appi^l -wasl b.Mi'e^.ifb^. liinitatioa Thus, the a^eal v^idisnussed.being ba^^ under the pronsions pf section 15-A of,1^ ChUattjisgarfr ^faa^^ (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (&»- shoFt i Ite Adbmi^mLJ I969').-f:: , .• , : : ,, :, :.:, ! :.''.::.1. • : • •:\,i: '.. ^:-;Y^.^'!:/; Inthe sai3 ord^fhe ConservatOTofI:<ares^i^.resp(mB discussed abmrt^uni^A or dela^mfilmg^appeaL^% N& 2 has takm reccairee to thelpKwisions pf seejtion 15-A. ot'^st: Adhiniyam, 1969 forAhe. pirpose ic^ii,imi^ GN perusal;Q£section| 15-A oftiie Adhmiyam, 1969, it isiclear ^hat seetion t5-A. is a^tli©a,b]jej ~\. ; •• . ; ..: • . • :• - : : ' .':: '. .1' II 11 e.:^: 4. only iri ease ofan ofderofcQnfiscation,ifa.ppeaIis preferred, the same may be done within 30 days ofthe order, There is no dispute that there wasno order ofconfiscation which ?vas impugned before therespondent No. 2, Thus, the respondent No. 2; after haviiig applied incorrect provisions of law wifhout discussing the delay and reasons, dismissed the appeal ori the ground of Umitation. The order impugned is unsastsusab^mlaw.Waypeais'&stt&e respondent No. 2 has passed the OTdermaverycaSualmatmerbydismissingtheappealQnthegroyndof limitation. ^ , ? ••''• For fhe reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impi(gned order dated 04.10.2007 (Annesaire P/I) is quashed. The delay m liling the appeal, if any, is eondoned and tlie appeal ofthe petitioner before tte respondent No. 2 maybe rastored tottte orjginsilliumber. It is furiher directed that having regard to the facts ofthe case that the appeal has been pending for more than 19 years, the respondent No. 2 shall look into the matter and after affording Qpportunity ofhearing to the parti^ concemed, pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period ef Ifaree months from receipt ofa copy ofthis orda-. Thewritpetitionisallowedtotheabove extent NoorderastocQSts. ;: Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge