Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Kunti vs State Of Chhattisgarh 8 Wpcr/176/2018 ... on 26 March, 2018

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                         1

                                                                            NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               WPC No. 808 of 2018

        Smt. Kunti W/o Sukhraj, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Karamdiha (B),
        Occupation Sarpanch, Of Gram Panchayat Karamdiha (B), Janpad
        Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Petitioner

                                      Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
        Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex,
        Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

     2. Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

     3. Collector, Balrampur- District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

     4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),       Wadrafnagar,   District   Balrampur
        Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

     5. Indra Prasad Manikpuri, S/o Ramkeshwar, Aged About 30 Years, Panch Of
        Village Panchayat Karamdiha (B), Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District
        Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 26/03/18

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 26.02.2018, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been admitted but the stay application filed by her has been dismissed by Commissioner, District Ambikapur.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law as the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, 2 therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and support the order impugned.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order with utmost circumspection.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it would be expedient to direct the Commissioner, District Ambikapur to dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after hearing the affected parties.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka