-HC—78 3^V W f<-fl'* TOI 311^1 Aliti '•^l^ ~T5( "41<ll<n<1, eTll'M'Ko, fqdKHy WWIT aifllth -^200 311^1-q'RT (-^^q) TOnm^itei 3ii^i •¥*ft *1 (Non-AppeUant) 1. Miss Ru^ 2. Zuyena V KIGH COURT QF CHlHATTISGARK AT BILASPUR Both da-f Mrs, tjaKeiy, Raipur, 1 tgfaters of Late Shri ShaiEtsher Khau & .Ja4ula Khaa, resident of Bebiad Raipur House No.22/415, Eiaijnafh Para, fahsU & Distiict Raipur (CG) (Appellaiit) Shabbii- resident Nb.37/3^ Ward, MuiucipE - ,TICL1 Smt, Reiiu Kochar, couns^ Shri Saajay Agrawal, coun^el Heard. This petifion under Articl directed against the order dateijl Committee of tlie Municipal Co| prcferred by the respoudent Np| pagsed by the Dy. Couunission ^iiqh'l^ft'l *im<nf^fT^t <^i<^i< ^sifm an^i 5 6265/2007 hda Baao, aged about 28 years ;haa, aged about 26 years, Khaa, S/o Late SIiri Shamsher Khaa, of Baijnafh. Para, Dhobi Gedi, Hoiise -O upper Portion, Maulaaa Abdul Rauf ipur, Tatisil and District Raipur (CG) Rejipur, The Ch4irman, Court of Appeal Com.mittee, |1 Corporation, Raipur (CO) S 227 or THS CONSTiTUTION OF INmA h06-a008 |1 for fhe. petitioners. for responderit No.2. 227 of the Constitution of India, is 21.12,2006, passed by ttie Appellate rpoiation, Raipur, whereby the. appeal 1 against the order dated 18,7.2001, ;r, Municipal Corporation, Raipur has ^gss-^' 311^1 ^I f<4 WI wi^w iniif ^=r "4i^ici<4, yTil'y'Ko, [q<iiyj,< *11*1CTI ^HT<t» W[,200 311^1 TT5W ('yf^'^I) TOiiw^ift^sii^i -.-2- tDie beeu aUowed, mutation order been set aside and it has beeit No.l be also mutated ia the petitioners. Learued counsel for fhel favour of fhe petitioners was pe^ prefen'ed by the respondent N^. bared by timitation. However, the petitioners has passed ftie ijp appeal was ban~e.d by limitation.] None appeare on behajt represeuted throiigh counsel, Shri Saijay Agrawal, No.2/'Corporation submits tha|t pertaining to fhe impugued Comiiuttee had directed issuanl there is nofhiag in record to petitionfirs. There is neither aa^ filing the appeal nor there is detey in filing the appeal is I have heard learaed Considering fhe fact thatl wifhout notice to the petitioners| No. 1 agaiast fhe order of clnl^f^l-1 "^TO^ff "^f f5tst' ^l<^< ^siRnsn^t jiassed va favour of the petitioners has directed fhat nam.e of the respoudent n^iuucipal record alongwith aaine of fhe petitioners submits that ttie order in. pe^sed on 18.7.2001, whereas appeal was \. 1 after inore than 4 yeara, which was Corporatiou without issuing noti.ee to itipugned order ignoring the fact that the of respondent No.l fhough he is ^eanied counsel for the respondent from perusal of fhe original record brder, it would be evident that the ;e of notice to fhe petitioners, however, ^how that notice was served upou fhe appUcatiou for condonatiou. of delay hi ai^y order by the Committee, whereby fhe counjsel for fhe parties, the inipugned order Iias been passed |aud the appeal preferred by respondent m favour of the petitiouers, was mutfction f^XI-HC-78 75E[ "t||ij|<r|A|, ©Tll'M'IS,fsldl+iy *11*(CTI (h*<l<*> W[^200 3n^n;w (lcifl»i^(i) Sf^V 'Vt R'fl'k TWT SIT^T 9FTlN? s~ WIIW ^lfet 311^1 ^- tdo entertamed after 4 years that ia preferruig the appeal and th^ susiamed and tlie saiae is liablel lu fhe result, fhe petiti(|] 21.12.2006 is set aside and tl Coinmitfee, Municipal Corporati|( tlie respondent No.l afresh i4 opporttmily ofheariug to fhe pel^tione 'tll^ft'lll'f 'V^\ ^f fe%t <[a1<^l< ^TaiRn sii^i without formaUy condonmg tiie delay ;refore, the iuipugned order caa not be to be set aside. in is aUowed, impugued order dated le matter is remitted to the AppeUate on, Raipur to decide the application of accordance with law afler afFordius ;rs herein . Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge