x ~ h / x7 I” \M]/a # IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR or 2010 PE’F-ITIONER: / Phool Klimari W/o Shri Ram Malir Aged about 3O yéars, Resident of V Village Vijaypur, Tahsil Baramkela, P.S. Sariya, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: / l. Commissioner Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur (C.G.) //2. The Additional Collector Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) /’3. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) Lalita W/o Gulaban, aged about 3O years, Resident of Village Vijaypur, Tahsil Baramkela, P.S. Sariya, District Raigarh' (C.G.) /'5. Indira W/o Tika Ram Pradhan R/o Village Vijaypur, Police Station Sariya, Tahsil Baramkela District Raigarh‘ (C.G.) V /6. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Panchayat 8a Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) / 7. The Project Officer, Intereated Child and women Development Project, Ba'ramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) Y‘i _@@E 22.?- k WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226,491? THE A CONSTITUTION OF INDI MW ‘ mm WWW, mug, W31 ‘13 .../..°wuoo mm (WEI) preferring a revision under Rul This legal position is ni petitioner. Having heard learned c< the facts and ircumstances of e 5 of the Rules of 1995. )t disputed by learned counsel for the )unsel for the parties, having regard to the case, I do no find any extraordinary c mmm am 311%?!m Ki mmm m WWW fi-Q‘m $W 37$?! SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra MQhan Shrivastava, J. 29.6.2010 Shri Manoj Jaiswal, coumsel for the petitionar. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1, 2, 6 85 7. ' Hsard. This petition has been f led by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 21.5.2010 (Annexu re P—1) passed by respondent No. 1/Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, in an appeal. Upon being enquired as to Whether there exists any remedy of appeal, learned counsel for the respondents—State submitted that there exists a provision for availing remedy of revision under the provision of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal 8a Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short “the Rules of 1995”). It is submitted that against the order passed in appeal by the Commissioner, petitioner has an alternative remedy of Wm mw<mi WWW J2 reason to entertain this petition on the face of availability .of an alternative statutory remedy. Consequently, this petition is disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to tile revision before] the State Government, if so advised. In case, revision is preferred by the petitioner before the State Government within the time stipulated for preferring revision under the Rules, from today, the revision shall be decided on its own merits without raising any objection with regard to limitation. sci/9 Em mmfaivar mmm WEW @WR %7aif<waa1%st (J, i i. Praveen [I \\' \ Mohan Shrivastala, Manindra Judge