Dismissed¶33

Shobhna George v. Rohit Singh

Writ Appeal – maintainability

Chhattisgarh HC16 Apr 2025WA/246/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 246 of 2025 (CGHC, DB: Ramesh Sinha, CJ & Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; decided 17.04.2025): intra-court writ appeal against Single Judge's Article 227 order held not maintainable under proviso to S.2(1), Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 expressly bars a writ appeal against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (as also against interlocutory orders). ¶32

Shobhna George Vs Rohit Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

NAFR

2025:CGHC:17590-DB

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date:2025.04.19 13:53:16 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WA No. 246 of 2025

¶7

Shobhna George W/o Sapan George Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Rajeev Nagar, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Rohit Singh Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora, DistrictKorba (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Lilar Goswami S/o Arjun Puri Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Rajeev Nagar, Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title	taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant	:Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocate
For State-respondent	:Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy
No.1	Government Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

17.04.2025

¶18

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through Video Conferencing.

¶19

2. Heard Mr. Ayush Lall, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

¶20

¶21

3. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):-

¶22

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant. appeal and set-aside the order dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure A-1) and further be pleased to quash/ set aside the order passed by the respondent no. 1 in the appeal number 202209050700003/0502/Apl सन् 2022-23 and a direction may be issued to firstly decide the stay proceedings bearing registration no. मा . कं . 202404050200018 सन् 2022-2023 and then the appeal pending before SDO (Revenue) Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.), in the interest of justice.”

¶23

4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (227) No.254 of 2025 ( Shobhna George v. Rohit Singh and another ), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been disposed of holding that the appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 was pending consideration before the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora since 2023 and the stay

¶24

¶25

was operating in favour of respondent No.2 and a direction be given to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora to dispose of the case expeditiously, if already not decided.

¶26

5. Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.1 / State submits that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the proviso to Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, for short, the Act of 2006, which specifically provides that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

6. Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 reads as follows :-

¶28

“2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a Judgment or order

¶29

of one judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction.- (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of same High Court:

¶30

¶31

Provided that no such appeal shall lied against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

¶32

7. Thus, proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006 expressly bars writ appeal against the order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

8. Going by the pleadings and it is not the case of this nature, in the said circumstance, we hold that the appeal is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly.

¶34

Sd/Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶35

Anu

Shobhna George v. Rohit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobhna George v. Rohit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Naresh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Keshav Nishad @ Dinesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Vental Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanshinath Sandaliya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Coal India Ltd. Vs Rahul Jaiswal