Dismissed

Ram Prasad and Ors. v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Sept 2012WPS/3837/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petition at the threshold. The court held that since the order was passed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, the petitioners must first exhaust the alternative statutory remedy of statutory appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority under the Rules of 1995.

Ram Prasad and Ors. Vs State Of C.g… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

/*:’7 " mngm Benéx

¶2

®
g0“
CV

¶3

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ’ AT BILASPUR (c.G.)

¶4

WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3&3 1P OF 2012

¶5

PETITIONERS

¶6

‘v Ram Prasad son of Jagarnath Ram, aged about 46 years, R/o. Village Ragda, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.),

¶7

Kailash Chandra Sahu son of Ram Ratan Sahu, aged about 38 years,^{R/o.VillageSonpur,} Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.),

¶8

Indrapal Tiwari, Son of Goutam E3rasad Tiwari, aged about 43 years, R/ o. Village Anrokha, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C^{. G.} ) ,

¶9

/ Devman Prasad Kashi, son of Ram Sundar, aged about 4.6 years, R/o. Village Masira, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.),

¶10

¶11

Ram Kumar Rajwade, son of Nanhu Ram, aged about 44 years, “B”, R/o. Village Baijnathpur Tahsil and District Surajpur (ca),

VERSU§

r i

RESPONDENTS 1/§tate of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary Panchayat, D.K.S. hawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Surajpur (C.G.), 3._/Commissioner, Ambikapur, District Surguja (co),

¶17

44/Gram Panchayat Chopan, Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chopan, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.), “B”, S/VGram Panchayat Baijnathpur Through : Sarpanch Gram “B”, Panchayat Baijnathpur Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.),

¶18

“C”,

¶19

6: Gram Panchayat .Sonpur Through : Sarpanch Gram “C”,

¶20

Panchayat Sonpur Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.),

¶21

¶22

7, “Gram^{PanchayatAnrokha,Through} Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat

¶23

Anrokha, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.),

¶24

¶25

1. Gram Panchayat^{Masira,Through} : Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat^Masira, Tahsil and District^Surajpur (C.G.),

¶26

1. Om Prakash Kushwaha, Secretary of Gram Panchayat^{Chopan,Tahsil} and District^Surajpur (C.G.)‘,

¶27

1. Chemar Lal Rajwade, Secretary of Gram Panchayat^{—Baijnathpur“B”,}

¶28

(ht Qv

¶29

/
@
®

¶30

Tahsil^{andDistrictSurajpur} (C.G.), // 11. Narendra Kushwaha, Secretary of Gram Panchayat — Masira, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.),

¶31

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLET226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

mm,mm

urn-arm

Wm^wWm

v11 20

mm (W)

)nwv Pam “" ”t“	mmm Wm wwm mmm
	3.3.: Hon’ble Shri Manindra ^Mohan rivaskva J. 13-09-2012 ‘ ShnVmay Pandey,counselfort petmoners Shn Arun Sao Govemment dvocate for the state on advance copy Heard After arguing ^for some ^{time, Ie} counsel far me patimners faidy submits ^that ^{as the order has been} sed by the Collector ^under l me provisions ^{of Chhattisgarh Panchay} t Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. the - petitioners have ^{an ainernative and effec' e remedy of ming siatutory} appeal under the provisions ^{of Chhatt} rh Panchayats (Appeal ^and Revision) Rules, 1995 (ln ^{short“lhe Ru} of 1995”). ln that view of the matter, l am not inclined ^{to entertain mis} peu‘tion, ^{without having exhausled the r} ofstalutory appeal by ^the petitioners. Accordingly, with the ^{liberty to m} appeal before ^{the appellate} authority underthe ^{Rules of 1995} this pe on is drsmissed a s l i a e y
up ' b	Sd/- Manindra ^{Mohan Shrivastava} Judge rrvrwrarrra*l\ 41—1/2012—~1 so0J0

)nwv
Pam
“"
”t“

mmm
Wm wwm
mmm

3.3.: Hon’ble Shri Manindra ^Mohan
rivaskva
J.
13-09-2012
‘
ShnVmay Pandey,counselfort
petmoners
Shn
Arun
Sao
Govemment
dvocate
for
the
state
on
advance copy
Heard
After arguing ^for some ^{time, Ie}
counsel far me patimners
faidy submits ^that ^{as the order has been}
sed by the Collector ^under
l
me provisions ^{of Chhattisgarh Panchay}
t Raj Adhiniyam,
1993. the
-
petitioners have ^{an ainernative and effec' e remedy of ming siatutory}
appeal under the provisions ^{of Chhatt}
rh Panchayats (Appeal ^and
Revision) Rules, 1995 (ln ^{short“lhe Ru}
of 1995”).
ln that view of the
matter,
l am
not inclined ^{to entertain mis}
peu‘tion, ^{without having exhausled the r}
ofstalutory appeal by ^the
petitioners.
Accordingly, with the ^{liberty to m}
appeal before ^{the appellate}
authority underthe ^{Rules of 1995}
this pe
on is drsmissed
a
s
l
i
a
e
y

up
'
b

Sd/-
Manindra ^{Mohan Shrivastava}
Judge
rrvrwrarrra*l\ 41—1/2012—~1
so0J0

Ram Prasad and Ors. v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad and Ors. v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Maurya Durg Vs Bhilai Steel Plant M.D. and Ors.

Bhagat Ram Kanwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vishnu Ram Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Manish Mishra and Ors. Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Abdul Sattar and Ors. Vs Smt. Sikha Majumdar and Ors.

Jai Singh Dhurve Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.