Disposed

Jagnarayan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC26 Jun 2024WPC/922/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought WPC setting aside an order granting interim status quo to respondents in a pending revision. The Court, finding the revision and preliminary delay/permission applications undecided by Respondent No. 1 since 2022, dismissed the petition by directing the State to decide those preliminary applications within four weeks before proceeding further.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Respondent No. 1 directed to decide applications for permission to file revision and condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act within f

Jagnarayan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 922 of 2023

¶5

Jagnarayan S/o Late Shri Bandhu Sao, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Daura, Tahsil Daura, Kochali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Ramnarayan, S/o Late Shri, Ram Das Sao Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Daura, Tahsil Daura, Kochali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

¶7

------Petitioners

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Additional Com1missioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

Upper Collector Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Sub Divisional Officer Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Tahsildar Daura-Kochali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Dineshwar Sao, S/o. Late Manki Sao, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Daura, Tahsil Daura-Kochali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Arjun Gupta, S/o Dineshwar Sao, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Daura, Tahsil Daura- Kochali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Kanti Devi W/o Late Ramjanam Jaiswal Aged About 60 Years R/o. Maya Lodge Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶17

Mukhchand Jaiswal, S/o. Late Ramjanam Jaiswal, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Maya Lodge Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶18

10.Chitmani, D/o Late Ramjanam Jaiswal, Aged About 37 Years R/o. Maya Lodge Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶19

Poonam, D/o Late Ramjanam Jaiswal, Aged About 34 Years R/o. Maya Lodge Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶20

------- Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : Mr. Amisham Hussain, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Manoj Pranjpe, Advocate

¶22

For Respondents No. 8 & 9 : Mr. Abhuday Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD

¶24

27/06/2024

¶25

Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

¶26

“10.1 issue notices to the respondents, returnable within early date of hearing.

¶27

10.2 Set -aside the impugned order dated

¶28

¶29

20.10.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1 and further be pleased to confirm the order dated 16.06.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2.

¶30

10.3 issue any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioners, which deemed fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the cas1e, in the interest of justice.

¶31

10.4 Cost of the petition.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that Respondents No. 6 & 7 have preferred a revision before the State Government against the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Surguja Division in a revision application. The revision submitted stated to have been filed before the State Government is along with an application for condonation of delay and application for permission to file revision. Respondent No. 1 without passing any order on both the applications has granted interim relief of status quo in favour of Respondents No. 6 & 7 which is not permissible in law. He also submits that without condoning the delay as also allowing the application for permission had admitted the revision for hearing. Interim applications are to be decided first and only thereafter the case ought to have been admitted, more so when the revision is filed along with application for condonation of delay. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gagandeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mechano and another¹ .

¶33

The revision which is filed before Respondent No. 1/ State is on 30.09.2022. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when question is posed to learned counsel for the respective parties as to the status of the revision application submitted by Respondents No. 6 & 7, they submitted that the revision is still pending before the State Government and it has not been decided on merits.

¶34

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that revision is pending consideration before the State ie., Respondent No. 1 since 2022 and the grievance of petitioner is that the application seeking permission to file revision as also the application for condonation of delay

¶35

1 (2002) 1 SCC 475

¶36

¶37

are still not decided on merits, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage directing Respondent No. 1 to first decide the application seeking permission to file revision as also the application seeking condonation of delay at the earliest and thereafter to proceed further.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and Respondent No. 1 is directed to first decide the application seeking permission to file revision and the application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order. It is also further directed that Respondent No. 1 shall not decide the revision on merits without considering and deciding the applications as stated above.

¶39

/pawan

Jagnarayan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagnarayan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jarina Vs Narayan Agrawal

Jarina Vs Narayan Agrawal

Jarina Vs Narayan Agrawal (Dead)

Arun Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Irfan Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Kumbhkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh