← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWA/107/2019dismissed

Chandan Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-02-18Hon'Ble The Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 107 of 2019 {Arising out of order dated 28.07.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 2097 of 2017} • Chandan Gupta, S/o Late Shri Gulab Chand Gupta, aged about 30 years, Occupation P.W.D. Civil Contractor, R/o Baisagarpara, Baikaunthpur, TehsilBaikaunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) ---- Appellant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Secretary Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Joint Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Commissioner, Scheduled Caste/Tribe Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

4. The Collector, District Koriya (C.G.)

5. The Executive Engineer, Scheduled Caste/Tribe Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

6. The Assistant Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe/Caste Development Department, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Appellant :

Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Shri R.S. Baghel, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor Judgment on Board Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 18.02.2019 1.

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

2.

The Court fails to understand as to why an appeal has been preferred against the revisional order dated 15.11.2017.

3.

The writ application was for a direction to release undisputed dues of the Appellant who was the Petitioner before the writ Court. On his submission his representation pending before Respondent No.6 was ordered to be disposed off now it has been decided which does not make the Appellant very happy. 4.

The present appeal stands dismissed not only on merit, but also on the ground of extraordinary delay of 499 days. I.A. No. 1 of 2019 is rejected. 5.

However, dismissal will not come in the way of the Appellant if he wants to assail the fresh order of rejection, passed by Respondent No.6 on his representation.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Vimla Singh Kapoor) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan