Lekhuram Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 7 OF 2020 Lekhuram Sahu, S/o Sukhdev Sahu, aged about 30 years, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bod, Janpad Panchayat, Saja, District Bemetara (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantrlaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2.

Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) 3.

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saja, District Bemetara (CG) 4.

Chief Executive Officer, Saja, District Bemetara (CG) 5.

Mohanlal Sahu, S/o Mahaveer Sahu, R/o Village Runga, Tahsil and Janpad Panchayat, Saja, District Bemetara (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate.

For Respondents-State :

Mr. Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 07/01/2020 1.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the District Collector, District Bemetara in Appeal No. 33-A-89/2018-19. 2.

The impugned order is an order passed exercising the appellate powers by the Collector under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

3.

At the outset, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this juncture for the reasons that there is a remedy of revision available against the order passed by the Collector. Since the petitioner has already availed the first remedy available under the said Act, this Court is of the opinion that he is also required to avail the remaining remedies available to him, that is of preferring a revision against the order passed in the said appeal. 4.

Reserving the right of the petitioner to avail the said remedy and thereafter, if still aggrieved, to approach this Court, the present writ petition in its present form is not maintainable as there are alternative remedies available to the petitioner.

5.

In case the petitioner prefers a revision before the revisional authority promptly, the revisional authority is expected to decide the revision at the earliest, in accordance with law.

6.

Subject to the petitioner furnishing the photocopy of the impugned order, certified copy of the same shall be returned back to him by the Registry of this Court.

7.

The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ JUDGE