..^•-"""'"s^.-jK'S^"*' ^^3;.;^"-^-'"*'* -2.6^5...-"'"" q'.Ztf ^ (^l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner W.P!»TO.-r^^7 / 2006 / Sadhu Ram S/0 Mithu Ram R/o Vill. Kurandi, Siliyagudapara Teh. Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar Respondents : / 1, ^ 2. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary Mining Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. The Collector, Jagadalpur Distt. Bastar Santosh Yadav S/0 Late Shri Laxmi Nath Yadav R/0 Itwari Ward Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar. / WRIT PETITION U/A 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant KumarMishra Writ^Petition No.5851 of 2006 Petitioner Respondents yersus Sadhu Ram State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: Shri Prafull Bharat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3 though served. Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution_of India ORAL ORDER th (Passed on 11"' November, 2010) Heard. 2. The petitioner appears to have moved an application before the Collector, Bastar for an enquiry and directing respondent No.3 to make payment of the amount of Rs.20,000/-, which he owes to the petitioner as price of the metal (Gitti) supplied to him. The Collector passed an order on 28-2-2005 (Annexure P-3) directing respondent No.3 to pay Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner. 3. Respondent No.3 preferred a criminal revision before the 4 Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bastar, which has been allowed by the impugned order passed on 24-2-2006 (Annexure P-4). 4. Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is without jurisdiction because a criminal revision does not lie against an order »nyi#WBUU»a*n!«kN«'«»i*la-» passed by the Collector, who had registered a revenue case under the miscellaneous head and proceeded to.pass the order Annexure P-3 in favour ofthe petitioner. According to him, respondent No.3, if at all, could have preferred a suit, however, in any case, a criminal revision under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not lie as no order under the Code was passed nor any jurisdiction under the Code was exercised by the Collector while passing the order Annexure P-3. 5. On perusal of the order Annexure P-3 and the impugned order Annexure P-4, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct and justified. The order passed by the Collector refers to the facts of the case and from the said contents it would appear that the dispute was about supply of metal and the non-payment of the price of the metal by respondent No.3 to the petitioner. The Collector registered Revenue Case No.253/B- 121/03-04. Power under the Code of Criminal Procedure has never been exercised by the Collector so as to entitle respondent No.3 to prefer a criminal revision before the Sessions Court. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Additiohal Sessions Judge was not justified in entertaining the revision against the order passed by the Collector as revenue authority in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure P-3. The impugned order dated 24-2-2006 (Annexure P-4) appears to be wholly without jurisdiction, therefore, it is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge