HIGH COURT GF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Misc. Civii Case No. 226 of 2005 Appiicant Respondents Ashok Kumar Chandrawanshi Versus Post for order: 23%4-2007 Sdl— ‘e’ X“: ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge State of Chhattisgarh and oihers QL/ HIGH CGURT OF SHHATTESGARH; BELASPUR Misc. Civil Case No. 226 of 2905 (Appiication to review the courts order dated 14-9-2005 passed by this Hon’bie Court in W.P.No.509i2002 (Smt. Urvarshi Vls. State of Chhattisgarh and others) SB: Hon’bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri Manindra Shrivastava Sr. Advocaie with Shri Amit Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4iState. Ku. Sharmiia Singhai, counsel for respondent No.5. Aopiicant Ashok Kumar Chandrawanshi, Respondent No.5 Sarepanch of Gram~“Panchayat. Makri, S/o. Babu Ram, Aged about 40 years, Rio. Viiiage & Gram Panchayat — Makri, Tahsil v - Pandariya, Dist. Kawardha (Kabirdham) (CG). Versus Respomden‘ts 1) State of Chhartisgarh through iis Secretary, Department of Panchayat Cdmmunity Weifare, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (CG). (Resgondem {Resgondent no.1) 2§ Commissioner, Raipur, Division, Raipur,CG. iRespondentiResgondent no.2) 3) Collector, Distt. Kawardha (Kabirdham) {CG}. gResgondentJResgondent no.3) 4) Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue) Pandariya, Dist. Kawardha (Kabirdham) (CG), (gespondent/Resgondent no.4). 5) Smi. Urvarshi, W/o. Shri Mahendra Satnami, Aged about 3O years, Rio. ViiiageKunda, Tahsii - Pandariya, DistL Kawardha (Kabirdham) (CG), (Respondent/Petiiionei) 7? O R D R (Passed on 23 ApriL 2007) By this application, the petitioner seeks i'eview/modificatien of the cider dated 14-9-2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.509/2002 2. The facts, in nutsheii, are that the respondent No.5 fiied a writ petition being Writ Petition No.509/2002. This Court vicie order dated 17- 12-2004 passed the following order. "17-12-2004 Sushri Sharmila Singhai, Adv. for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, (Dy‘ Govt. Advocate for the State. $hri PP. Sahu, A‘dv. for the respondent no.5 Heard. it is submitted that the dismissal of the petitioner is based on a resoiution and now the resoiution has been passed for taking back her in service. if that be so, it is open to the Gram Panchayat to proceed with the matter in accordance with iaw and the petitioner may make a representation. Proper orders may be passed by the Panchayat if so desire without prejudice to the rights of respective parties. List the matter after a month 3. Pursuant to the order dated 47-12-2004, the Chef Executive Gfticer, Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya, passed the foiiowing order dated 26-5—2005 which was annexed in the petition as Annexure Cl2. nth: awn, an? Warm? W— W$WWWHW(W WWW??? ftrgfarr W W mm sent; 372W W W mm; WW3? a? anésr so—swg. tit 50s/2 W—ri/w/gou . WWWWWWWWyHWWmVW (giai)$w?f%anéaavaf$mwv# WWW??? WHWWWWW WWW W—am‘hmzrm WWa‘aITWWmz‘gWwmgangfrwmwwi #Wmm$w€wmm§gmw§m$ Wm'¥ff%€??mfémrm§1 %H¢m&ww§g§a Wwqv‘ama, W$Wwwmv§m$wkfgw¥ HIVVmWmwWW$W§HIfWfm$W wmww‘wwl w‘m-— m WW W‘ v1? W WW1 gammm W W V‘VW 4. n view of the abové stated order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, this Court, after hearing ail the parties including the review applicant, disposed of the matter tinaily directing the applicant i.e Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Makri; Janpad Panchayat, Dist. Kawardha, to compiy with the order dated 265-2005 passed by the Chief Executive Ofticer, Janpad Panchayat, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Makri, was through out represented in the writ petition and at no stage the applicant took an objection that the resolution dated 16—3-2005 was in fact never passed. in the present application, the applicant has taken this stand for the first time which cannot be entertained at this stage when two orders dated 17-1 2—2004 and 14-9-2005 were passed by this Court. Thus, there is no apparent error on the face of record which requires review of the order dated 14- 9-2005 soughi to be reviewed in this appiicaiion. // /\\_ // ii 6. However, having regard to the facts and Circumstances of the case, if in fact, no resolution was passed, the applicant is granted libeity / i to the effect that the orders passed by this Court win not come in the way of initiating any appropriate action against the comerned empioyee by holding appropriate enquiry and passing appropriate order in the matter. - 6. Thus, in view of the foregoing, Misc. Civil Case is aocordingiy disposed of. Satish K. Agnihotri Sdi— Judge m