High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1164/2015dismissed

Smt. Kunwari Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-09-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1164 of 2015 Smt. Kunwari Bai W/o Sukh Lal Aged About 40 Years Caste Kanwar Working As Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Parmeshwarpur, Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur, R/o Village Parmeshwarpur Police Station & Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex Naya Raipur Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

3. The Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Pratappur Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

5. Raghav Prasad Singh S/o Laxman Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Parmeshwarpur, Police Station & Tahsil Pratappur, District Surjapur Chhattisgarh

6. Kawalsai Sai S/o Dakhinaha, Aged About 35 Years R/o Parmeshwarpur, Police Station & Tahsil Pratappur, District Surjapur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents Shri V.K.Pandey, counsel for the petitioner/s. Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. / respondents 1, 2 and 3. Shri Shrawan Agrawal, counsel for respondents 5 and 6. Order On Board 04/09/2015 At the outset, it is disclosed to this Court that against the order impugned in this petition, the petitioner had preferred a revision before the Commissioner and during the pendency of that revision, this writ petition has been filed without disclosing this fact in the petition filed before this Court. 2.

Irrespective of the merits of the case, taking into consideration that the

petitioner has filed this petition suppressing the fact of pendency of revision against the order which is subject matter of decision in this petition, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to remedy available under the law. 3.

Certified copy of the impugned order be returned back to the counsel for the petitioner after retaining photo copy of the same. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Deepti