Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36090 (CHH)

BABA JAI SATANAM MAHILA SWA-SAHAYATA SAMUH MOHATARA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/3167/2019 · 2025-03-24

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

-1- 2025:CGHC:14054 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3167 of 2019 Baba Jai Satanam Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Mohatara Through Its President Smt. Rukhmani Bai Banjare, W/o Tilak Banjare, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Mohatara, Thana - Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R), Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4 - The District Education Officer Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Block Education Officer Navagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Mahamaya Swa Sahayata Samuh Village Mohatara, Block - Navagarh, Through Its President Dulari Bai Sahu, W/o Devnath Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Bazar Chouk, Near Ram Mandir, Side of Navagarh, Thana, Navagarh, Police Station Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.03.2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 1) Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that according to the circular dated 07.08.2012, issued by the Chhattisgarh Government, the petitioner has alternate remedy to challenge the impugned order before the Collector. 2) At this stage, Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek permission of this Court to approach the concerned Collector by filing a duly constituted appeal. 3) No objection from the other side. 4) Permission granted. 5) Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the concerned Collector against the order impugned and it is expected that the concerned Collector shall consider & decide the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 04 months. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim