← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1550/2015withdrawn

Devendra Kumar Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-03-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1550 of 2015 • Devendra Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Kanshi Prasad Pandey, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Purani Basti, Police Station City Kotwali, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office & Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioners.

:

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava and Shri R.S.

Marhas, Advocates.

For Respondents/State.

:

Shri Vivek Sharma, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order On Board 30/03/2016 1.

In view of para 3 of reply filed by the State Government, Advocates for the petitioner fairly admit that there exits an alternative remedy for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal. It is next submitted that they may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal directing it to decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously ignoring the point of limitation. 2.

State counsel has no objection so far as withdrawal of the

petition and filing an appeal by the petitioner before the Tribunal is concerned. He, however, submits that the point of limitation be kept open for the Tribunal.

3.

Be that as it may, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present petition. In the eventuality of filing an appeal before the Tribunal by the petitioner within three weeks from today, it is expected from the Tribunal to decide the said appeal strictly in accordance with law within four months ignoring the point of limitation.

4.

It is made clear that nothing has been observed on merit aspects of the case and the Tribunal would be at liberty to decide the appeal of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.

Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) JUDGE Vijay