Rajesh Kumar Rajpoot v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3750 of 2015 Rajesh Kumar Rajpoot S/o Shri Tulsi Singh, Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram & Post Gohrapadar, P.S. Deubhog, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director, Director Of Panchayat, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri K.Rohan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order On Board 15/10/2015 Counsel for the parties submit that against the order impugned dated 28.2.2015 revision lies to the Divisional Commissioner. He submits that at this stage he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the remedy of revision. He however submits that as the petitioner has filed this present writ petition, revisional authority may not entertain his revision on the ground of limitation and therefore the said authority be directed to decide the revision to be preferred by the petitioner ignoring the point of limitation. State counsel has no objection to the above proposition as put forth by the counsel for the petitioner.

Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid liberty. In the eventuality of filing revision by the petitioner within three weeks from today, the revisional authority is directed to decide the matter expeditiously ignoring the point of limitation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the revisional authority would be at liberty to decide the revision strictly in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Registry be directed to return the the certified copy of the impugned order dated 28.02.2015 (Annexure P-1) which has been filed along with this petition. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the order to counsel for the petitioner provided he supplies the xerox copy of the same. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge suguna