1 WPS No. 3306 of 2016 2025:CGHC:1010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3306 of 2016  Smt. Kamla Dewangan Wf/o Ram Sharan Dewangan, aged about 39 years, R/o Ward No. 10, Nagar Palika Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Nagar Palika, Takhatpur, through Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Uma Dewangan, W/o Pawan Kumar Dewangan, R/o Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For State-Respondent1 & 3 :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 :- None. For Respondent No.4 :- Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.10 11:41:20 +0530 2 WPS No. 3306 of 2016 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 07/01/2025 1. The petitioner herein calls in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 29.06.2016 by which, the appeal preferred by the petitioner calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Collector as well as the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), has been dismissed finding no merit. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 was appointed on the post of Anganbadi worker, Nagar Panchayat (now Nagar Palika), Takhatpur, District Bilaspur in ward No.10, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) by its order dated 10.12.2013 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding that the appeal of the petitioner is barred by limitation against which the petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector and the Collector affirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) holding that each day delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner against which the petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal and affirmed 3 WPS No. 3306 of 2016 the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). Thus, this writ petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and order of the Collector as well both have concurrently erred in holding that each day delay is required to be explained as in the notification/circular dated 02.04.2008 issued by the State Government for preferring the appeal no period of limitation has been prescribed, therefore, appeal preferred by the petitioner was within the reasonable time. Even otherwise, the petitioner came to know of about the appointment order dated 24.10.2011 of respondent No.4 only on 10.01.2012 under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act”), thereafter, he preferred an appeal on 17.01.2012 and, as such, looking to the period between the date of getting information under RTI Act and the date on which the petitioner preferred the appeal is a reasonable time, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submit that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner, therefore, the 4 WPS No. 3306 of 2016 appeal of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) as well as by the Collector and, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent authority invited application for the post of Anganbadi worker, for which the petitioner and other candidates had also applied. However, on 24.10.2011, appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No.4 for the post of Anganbadi worker on which she joined. Subsequently, the petitioner for the first time on 03.11.2011 came to know about the appointment of respondent No.4 on the said post. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act on 27.12.2011 seeking information about the appointment of respondent No.4, which she received on 10.01.2012. Thereafter, on 17.01.2012 the appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) which has been dismissed holding that the petitioner has failed to explain the each day delay occurred in filing of the appeal and same was affirmed by the Collector vide order dated 07.08.2015. However, the notification dated 02.04.2008 only provides 5 WPS No. 3306 of 2016 that the appeal will prefer under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1956, but period of limitation has not been prescribed in the notification. Even the Collector, the Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has clearly held that the petitioner had got the information under RTI Act on 10.01.2012 and appeal was immediately preferred on 17.01.2012 i.e. the reasonable time from the date of getting information. As such, there is no allegation that the petitioner has deliberately delayed in filing the appeal or acted mala fidely in preferring the appeal. Consequently, the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the Collector and the Additional Commissioner are hereby set aside and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is remitted to the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) concerned for deciding the appeal of the petitioner afresh on merits after hearing the parties. Since the matter is pending for more than 10 years, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) is directed to conclude the hearing within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kota, District Bilaspur, on 27th of January, 2025. 6 WPS No. 3306 of 2016 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction the instant writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit