Disposed

Balaram v. Jodiyak Dealer Private Limited

Chhattisgarh HC1 Nov 2021WPC/4410/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions to expedite a pending revision against an inaction by the Revenue Board. The court held Article 226 inappropriate but exercised Article 227 jurisdiction, directing disposal within three months and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Board is directed to expedite and dispose of the revision petition within three months from the date of order.

Balaram Vs Jodiyak Dealer Private Limited — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPC No. 4410 of 2021

¶4

Balaram, S/o Dayaram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Yadav Nagar Tifra, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.1), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jodiyak Dealer Private Limited, Through - Director Sanjay Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Agrawal, R/o. Kranti Nagar Ward No.14, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Applicant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Ramayan, S/o Banshilal Yadav, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Yadav Nagar Tifra, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.2), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Board Of Revenue, Through - Chairman, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra , Advocate. For State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, PL.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order On Board

01/11/2021

Heard.

Present petition has been brought praying only for issuance of direction against respondent No.3.

¶17

It is submitted that the petitioner has preferred a revision against the order of the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division dated 3.4.2018, which is pending before the respondent No.3 since 19.4.2019 without any progress. Therefore, direction may be issued for expedited decision on

¶18

¶19

the revision filed by the petitioner.

¶20

Considered on the submissions. The grievance of the petitioner is against the inaction of Revenue Board i.e. Respondent No.3, which is acting as a Court while hearing on the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, the petition brought under Article 226 is not appropriate, however, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 Constitution of India, hence, this petition is disposed off. The respondent No.3 is directed to expedite the proceeding in the revision petition filed by the petitioner and dispose off the same as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶21

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)

¶24

Judge

¶25

Nisha

Balaram v. Jodiyak Dealer Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaram v. Jodiyak Dealer Private Limited

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

Jhumuk Lal Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Basruddiin @ Raju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Sarthi @ Motu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arjun Sahu Vs Mohan Lal

Bajrang Prasad Soni Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Sanjay Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh