1 2025:CGHC:58320-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 873 of 2025 Komal Prasad Patel S/o Shri Arjun Singh Patel Aged About 49 Years Working As Assistant Development Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dabhra, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2.The Development Commissioner Office Of Development Commissioner, Indravati Bhawan, Block-1, Ground Floor No. 43, Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Dabhra, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.03 10:39:26 +0530 2 Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 02.12.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 12158 of 2025 by which, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a representation before the concerned authorities by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “(1) Allow this writ appeal and set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 12158 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble High Court. (2) Set-aside/quash the order dated 07.10.2025 and further be please to direct the respondent authorities to allow the appellant to continue on the post of Assistant Development Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dabhra, District-Sakti (C.G.). (3) That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the appeal may be given.” 3. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- 3 “ 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a representation before the concerned respondent authorities. 2. Permission is allowed. 3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition (s) is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no prayer was made before the learned Single Judge for withdrawal of the petition whereas the matter was argued on merits, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity. It is submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge clearly reflected the petitioner's intent, and the order was passed in accordance with the submisison of the petitioner. The State counsel further argues that no ground is made out for setting aside the impugned order, and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 4 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant that the writ petition was not withdrawn at his instance. The operative portion of the impugned order clearly records that permission to withdraw the writ petition was sought and granted. In absence of any material to indicate that the recording made by the learned Single Judge is incorrect, the appellant cannot now be permitted to dispute the same. The order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti