§$§¥5§§§9§ @W‘g‘a IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAWTSGART—T AT §I%§§PUR W.P.NO. 2005 Petitioner : Rohit Knmar Pm'kra S] o Vakil Singh Aged about 35 yeara, Rf o Village Jhahdi, P.S.Kasdol, DiSt : Raipur—(C.G.] State of Chhattisgarh, Through the secretary Panchayat and Development of Urban I Lacal Administration Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur, Dist : Raipur—(QGJ The Addl.Co]1ector, Baloda Bazar, Dist: Raipur— (C.G.) Bhupendar Singh SI o Not Known Rf o Village Jhabdi, Tehsil — Kasdol, Dist: Raipur— (C.G.) K m As, cs. BXLASPUR WT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22$ i 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Tilijgi, ‘QPY )w GLER 1. Particulars of the Petitjxmar'> 1 .._.._.q Q w aw WW WW “gr: coggmgg JunlcATURgATW BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH mm. DMsroN gENcH Shri Shri Sanjay Deepak S.Agrawai, Jain, counsei GA. for for the ihe patitioner. State. ORAL ORDER [Passed on 19‘” February, 2007) ral order of the Coun The following o H.L. Dauu, CJ. ‘ was passed by ‘7 a Though ihe matter is posted before the Court for orders, . by the consent of learned counsel appearing for bodw the ‘partiee the matter is taken up for final hearing. ln this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality or otherwise of the order dated 04- (2) 10-2005 passed by the Additional Collector I respondent No.2, in exercise of his poWer under Section 36(1) (m) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. (3) ln our view. if for any reason, the petitioner was ’aggrievedviby the aforesaid order, he had to tile an appropriate appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the provisions of M.P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. Bypassing the statutory appeal remedy. in our view, the petitioner could not have CORAM: HowBLE SHRI HI. DATTU. cJ AND HON'BLE sHRI v.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. PETITIONER: W Writ Petition No.5685 of 2005 Rohit Kumar Paikta. VERsus ”N“ RESPONDENTS: State of Chhauisgarh and others. Piesgnt: approached this Court since the appeal so provided for is an effective 1 and efficacious remedy. (4) In that view of the matter, we dectine to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However. liberty is reserved to the petitioner. if he so desires, to question the legality or otherwise of the order dated 044 0-2005 passed by the Additional Collector I respondent No.2 before the appeilate forum within a month’s time from today. lf such an appeal is tiled within the time granted by this Court. the appellate authority shall decide the same without reference to the period of limitation. All the contentions raised by both the parties are left open. (5) The interim order passed earlier shall enure to the benent of the petitioner for a further period of one month from today. Ordered accordingly. 3‘ Sd/— / Sd/- Chief Justice r4 ,i /—#i "’ km l l V.K. Shrivastava Judge JUDGE‘ .