Smt. Annapurna Chandravanshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No.

Smt. Annapurna Chandravanshi W/o Shri Ramesh Chandravanshi Aged About 46 Years Sarpanch Gram Panchayat- Mohgaon, Janpad Panchayat- Pandariya, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Additional Collector Kawardha District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

3. Sub Divisional Officer (R) And Prescribed Officer Of Gram Panchayat Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, DistrictKabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

5. Shri Gangaram Tandiya The Then Secretary Of Village PanchayatMohgaon, Block- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

6. Muniram S/o Janakram Aged About 49 Years R/o Village And Village Panchayat- Mohgaon, Janpad Panchayat- Pandariya, TehsilPandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Mr. V. R. Tiwari, Addl. A.G.

For Respondent No.6 :

Mr. Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 03/12/2019

1. Perusal of the record would show that in the relief No. 10.2 has sought for an appropriate direction the Collector to decide the application for grant of interim relief enclosed along with the memo of appeal be decided at the earliest.

2. To this limited relief, the counsel appearing for the State as well as the respondent No.6 does not have any serious objection.

3. Perusal of the record would show that against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 06.11.2019 (Annexure P/6), the

petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector along with an application for interim relief, however the application for interim relief is not being decided till date and the matter is getting adjourned time and again only on that.

4. Given the said limited relief that the petitioner has sought for, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would serve if the writ petition itself is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to decide the appeal itself finally or atleast the application for interim relief on the next date of hearing, if not, atleast within two weeks from the next date of hearing.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved