Ril IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETmON(S)No.^^5t?" OF 2011 PETITIONER /^ ,'.c^ ,^\'^<'^/^'v... Manendragarh, €:-^^'" (C-G-)' Ku. Kavita Sahu, D/o Dhanush Lal Sahu, aged about 22 years, R/o. village Kevti, Gram Panchayat Dugala, Tahsil District Koria s^-" <!.' RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^ 1) State of Chhattisgarh through f Secretary, Women and Child Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralya, Raipur (C.G.), 2)' Women & Child Development 9 Officer, Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.), 3) Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dugala, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.), /' 4) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.), 5)^' Additional Collector, Manendra- garh, District Koria (C.G.), 6) Smt. Rajkuraari wife of Vijay ^ Kumar, R/o. village Kevati, Gram Panchayat Dugala, Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.). '3- 1 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS^ORDER/QRDERS^ DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS etc. --%,. ~S~^ "fl-^K'l^, 'S^ftWIS, f^fTCTy \^^s)v^, l^ijr^n Sii^I '^V (1 W 311^1 sh4 Deepa <gWl^T ^if^T 3TT^T SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra NIohan Slirivastava, 4. 30-06-2011 fcir ttie Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsei N. Naha Roy, Panel Lawyer for 1(1 Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, counsei io\ Learned counsel for the petition| earlier filed an appeal before the appell; m tne writ petition. Learned counset withdrawn hersecond appeal, which wa{ Considering that the petitioner atternative remedy OT .second appeal ar| ordinary reason to warrant interrerenc^ india on the face of existing alternativj entertain this petition. T'nis petition is th^ Tne petitioner nowever, wouid t>^ the concerned authority, who shall cons| gven 'liWlci'ft1! WTCTf'? 1%tSt 'tfaf<«;l< ^sifwian^m tne petitioner. State / respondents 1, 2 and 5. respondent No.6. ^r fairiy submitted that the petitioner had |te authority but this fact was not disciosed submits that the petitioner has now ^ pending berore the appeilate authority. before filing this writ petition, availed |d in tne aDsence ot there being any extra under Articie 226 of the Constitution of p remedy of appeai, i am not inclined to prefore disposed off. at liberty to revive second Appeai beTore ider the matter on fts own merits. _„- t^^draMohanSteiva.ta^ Judge »m£\9il^<i iisiiii-Ki, (RRWira—FS/140—2/2011—i ,so,ooo.