%- /StSj^— THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILA8PUR CtlBATTlSGAKH a w ss,. WRIT PETITION NQ. ^60 OF 2006 &^ EE3TTIONER: o ^^I> ^Q^y^- %%£-/""'- •^••"'l'^/'n?\ Dasru Ram Sahu, S/o Shri Fagnu"' Ram Sahu, Aged about 66 years, Panch, Ward No.19, Oram Panchayat Tarenga, Block/ Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, R/o village Tarenga, Tashil Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). ^^ ^•"' ' ^ RKSPONDENTS : ^s ^y ^ ^ »0-A ^&^ ^ ^^'^a"^^. •*="E.^,_ '-'BSaB:^.-"-'' Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, ^ Through the Secretary, Department of Paachayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Ralpur 2. Director (Panchayat) / Raipur (CG). 3. Additional Collector,.- Baloda Bazar, District Raipur 4. Smt. Saroj Bai Aadil, W/o Manoharlal Adil, Aged about 53 years, Sarpanch, Gram Pranchayat Tarenga, Block Bhatapara, Tehsil 1 Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). 5. Gyanendra Agrawal, Upsarpanch, Gram Panchayat Tarenga, Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). ;& i WRITFETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QF THE CON8TITUTION 0_F INDIA ^ XI-HC-22 ^) an^r^ir l^iNisn^T OTWHfStT ^- 0^ ^ •Utfti^ ^ '^ n 3:£T^ll^Krd, (!)TTly'l6, [sfdiy^i 3TT^?T45lch ITTtRTT a?ITre?" ' H^' 200 ^, f^s 3n^r??(iTW(if?cT sanne 04.09.2006 Shri B.D.Guru, counsel Shri N.K.Agrawat, Dy. No.1,2 and 3. Heard. By way of this writ petiticjn to respondent No.1 to dispose provisions of Panchavat Rai fiied bv respondent No.5 againsit The brief facts are that against respondent No.4, whictli the Collector set aside the passed by the Collector, Director(Panchavat), which wai and the said revision is oendind The praver is that the revision within a timeframe giveh In the opinion of this maintainabte at the instance of| nor the respondent before the the stranger and in this mann^r this petition. The petition filed by the is dismissed atthe motion stag^ fdr the petitioner. Advocate General for the State/ respondents itii''<f<-i41-f iitcaT ff toit (.(SI+AK ^;3:rf^'q'3T1^T i, the petitioner has prayed for a direction lof the pending revision petition under the Aclhiniyam, 1993, which is said to have been respondent No.4. & 'No Confidence Motion' was carried out was challenaed before the Collector and Being aggrieved with the said order, resdondent No.5 filed a revision before the subsequentlv transferred to the Secretary before the said authority. authority be directed to dispose of the by this Court. Qourt, such kind of petition would not be |the petitioner, who is neither the applicant doncerned authority and his status is one of fr, he is not having any locus standi to file sbid ^etitioner is not maintainabte and the same • itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (ift^y^) (K