e@9SK^@iK eaaascESxssiiBs ss BII^BSPBS S®REEB»^fi®.^^:'2-/M^ 'yi/a,, 'P&CK^ .BafeerBrAaes: 'EteEfliittigli Atis PEOptieter, SaiteftaEj?ar^h* sea; ef Baufl ;BbaA fiiesdfleat of,KesBkalj; . B!tafeEiett3"ag<ialBar (Cbb^ttsgarh) t PETXfieiNEK ^ •s:^ k^ 5) WgR! 1) T(ae gtst^ef^bbatfcitsgart) :'• .: 2|!Se"BS&'.tteS^$S<!te*a5?»:'. '..'.'•.• Hiaeral KesQUESas-BjSpar'&Beaa SeeEe'taria'tS, B.K. BbaTan, 'Ba.tBaE:*.^ _.............., . / -. ...^.. -. 2) Theeonaal.ssimeE. «ra^lalgur 3) Ihe eelleefcei:, KaBkeE 4) Tbe a'aKstldar, Keshltal* Matrle't-BastaE, « vaswiisisssis Sbe Offteer M#t»_.SSat». Sab OfiEl.ciis, Kealikal, Bi.sfcEiettBastaE. ysas EESEEIW -:'«BBS- •OS^R .aRSK%ES 2g!& & 2^7 OB sssEixs BSi»veS[;'isss&______ Ri^?: i:^h?r'1!?B^!'?*"^Sg"^^"'^^y.Is^:.^^: XI-HC-22' |:!l* ssfS» -S^ •<(]'41<rl<<, 'S^ftWTS, fcidl'Hy cT 'W ^.:f.;yuLN£a5l^l 33^1'SBI it'Tra'siSn 'ST'^^lf^T 371^1 i'RffWBft^ co lf?l<l'-( tlitfd'l'? 'fei^ ^fSRc ^7 sipgii sn^l Linset for the petitioner. 1 for resoondent Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Shri Rajeev The writ petitioher is impu^ning an order of refusul to grant stay in an appea! which is per^ding before the commissioner at Je appeal No.l3/A-6p'/2000-2001. The to pay a sum of Kdpees Ten Lacs as fine for- aliet carrying out illegal excavation of b^iuxite from Jagdalpur area. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, i4oirned counsel for the respondent No.l, submits that slnce the Commissioner, the petitioner shoul^i / if that be so learned at least recovi should remain stayed before Commissioner. The order of rel 24/08/200i. Though no order o-] that no recovery has been made is pending before remedy there. for the ;ry of the fine of Rupees Ten Lacs the matter is decided by the usnl to grant stay was issued on stay has been possed it is stated' e til! date as contended by Shri [•T^^feir 1:*0 3-:|3W ^ •K--W 3ff^' ira%(i^f <BT^I •FCTW "afta 1 ^OTi?pftst tiww' ii 'fsv '(fSRSR ! •^' apOTa'l^; The next da-te fixed in •th^ oppeal before the Commtssioner at Jagdatpur is 20 December, 20Q1 In my view, it is for the competent appellate cuthority to pass neceisary inferim or final orders jn the matter. In fact interim reiief h4s already been refusedtc^ ^%iain^1S®yi s . •'" in the matter is to decide the i^erst of the appeal w'.thout further- delay. I would, therefore, dir4ct •(^^' the learned Commissioner L!J decide the matter on the next cjnte fixed i.e. 20 December, 2001. of Justice, till 1^ie naxt date of hearing i.e. 20 no recovery be n^ads. Let s Ten Lacs r for Rupees Two Lacs-within 15 day;s. Sd/- ChiefJustice ::r