Chhattisgarh High Court
REVP/103/2011 of NAGAR PANCHAYAT GANDAI Vs SHIVENDRA DAS VAISHNAV and ANR. on 16 December 2011
CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'bie Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'bSe Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma. JJ. Review Petition No. 103/20U Applicant Non-appiicants Vs. 1. 2. Nagar Panchayat Gandai, Through: The Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Gandai, District Rajnandgaon (CG) (Respondent No.2)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Review Petition No. 103/20U
Review Petition U/S 114 read with Order47 ofthe Civjl ProcedureCode.1908.
ORAL ORDER
(Passed on 16th December, 201 1)
Heard..
2. By the instant petitioner, the appiicant has prayed for reviewof order dated 30.6.2011 passed in Writ Appeal No.399/2010.
3. Shri Pandey submits that the writ petition was dismissed bythe tearned Single Judge, whereas, by allowing the writ appeal, twothe tearned Single Judge, whereas, by allowing the writ appeal, twoauctionnoticesdated9.3.2010and29.3.2010issuedby theappljcant have been quashed and the applicant has been directed toappljcant have been quashed and the applicant has been directed to process the case of respondent No.1 for appropriate decision in lightof observations made in the order.
4. The order is based on the documents of Nagar Panchayatitself(Annexure-P/3inthewritpetition),inwhich,nameofrespondent No.1 was mentioned with size of shop and part paymentofpremiumamount,whichrespondentNo.1depositedon27.10.2004 vide receipt No.27/93.Contentions of the applicant arementioned in para 3 of the appellate order and alt the points raisedhave been considered in the order.Shri Pandey could not point outany such ground, on which a different view may be taken.He alsocoutd not point out any substantial evidence/whlch was !eft out ofconsideration while deciding the writ appea!.
S.For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in thereview petition, it deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissedsummariiy.
Sd/-Sunil Kumar SinhaJudge
Sd/-R.S.[Sharma]Judge