Smt. Poornima Pushpakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 790 of 2016
1. Smt. Poornima Pushpakar W/o Sewaram Pushpakar, Aged About 45 Years Ex-Ward Member, Nagar Panchayat, Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh). R/o Dissolved Nagar Panchayat, Post Vishrampuri, Tahsil And Police Station Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).
2. Smt. Kumeshwari Samrath, W/o Dhannu Ram Samrath, Aged About 41 Years Ex President, Nagar Panchayat, Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh). R/o Dissolved Nagar Panchayat, Post Vishrampuri, Tahsil And Police Station Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).
3. Smt. Pushpa Soni, Wd/o Late Hemant Soni, Aged About 55 Years Social Worker, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh). R/o Dissolved Nagar Panchayat, Post Vishrampuri, Tahsil And Police Station Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).
4. Krishna Kumar Sahu, S/o Hatoi Ram Sahu, Aged About 49 Years President Of Sahu Samaj, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh). R/o Dissolved Nagar Panchayat, Post Vishrampuri, Tahsil And Police Station Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).
5. Girdhari Pandey, S/o Ramsingh Pandey, Aged About 60 Years Social Worker, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh). R/o Dissolved Nagar Panchayat, Post Vishrampuri, Tahsil And Police Station Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh). ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
2. The Collector, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).
3. The Sub Divisional Officer ( R ), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).
4. The Tahsildar, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents For Petitioners :
Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate.
For State :
Mr. B. Gop Kumar, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board
31/03/2016 Heard on admission.
A proposal for inclusion of certain villages in Nagar Panchayat is in the process. Objections were invited and according to the petitioners, they have submitted their objections also. However, there is neither any averment nor any notification on record to show that notification now been issued giving rise to cause of action to the petitioners. The petition appears to be without any cause of action. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with liberty to take recourse to the remedy as and when cause of action arises.
Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Rekha