Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHH HC Writ Petition 437132
CHH HC Writ Petition 437132
CHH HC Writ Petition 437132
AFR
Mangali Mahinag W/o Shri Gunsagar Mahinag Aged About 37 Years R/o
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
Judgment on Board
15.09.2022
appellant. Also heard Mr. K.N. Nande, learned counsel, appearing for
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 4422 of 2018,
had applied for the same in respect of Janpad Panchayat, Bhilaigarh and
12.10.2017.
had set aside the order of the appointment of the petitioner and had
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
the High Court Legal Services Authority. 7 days’ time was also granted to
petition do not indicate that interim order was revived and restored.
8. Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes to show that
present before the Court, had informed the Court that after being
appointed on 25.06.2018, the respondent No. 1 was sent for training and
payment of salary.
10. Mr. Kesharwani submits that the writ petition was admitted and
therefore, after such admission, the learned Single Judge ought not to
contention, Mr. Kesharwani has placed before the Court a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. &
11. Ms. Astha Shukla submits that there is no proposition in law that
individual case will determine whether the Court would decide the writ
SCC 675 as well as a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
12. Mr. Nande submits that despite the respondent No. 1 bringing to the
13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
14. In the instant case, the writ petition was admitted on 27.07.2018.
5
premise that once a writ petition was admitted for hearing, the petitioner
16. In Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had observed that the High Court having entertained the writ petition, in
which pleadings were also complete, ought to have decided the case on
merits instead of relegating the parties to a civil suit. What cannot be lost
sight of the fact is that the writ petition was pending for a long period of
13 years. The aforesaid case does not lay down as a proposition that
and the writ Court cannot exercise discretion to relegate the petitioner to
Court that the matter could be decided by a writ Court. It was observed
20. Having regard to the nature of the dispute raised, we are of the
considered opinion that it is not a case where the writ Appellate Court
infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge for relegating
22. Before parting with the records, we direct the respondent authorities
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan