Chief Executive Officer vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

1 / 5

CGHC010001842012 2026:CGHC:45175
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
SHARMA
Date:
2026.10.28
10:56:21
+0530
JYOTI
SHARMA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 709 of 2012
Chief Executive Officer Aged About 18 Years Bilaspur
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through Secretary, Deptt Of
Panchayat And Rural Development, Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur,
Cg, Chhattisgarh
2. Commissioner Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Cg, District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
3. Nanakram Sahu S/o Jodhanram Sahu R/o Vill And Post Khamaria,
Tah Nagri, Distt Dhamtari, Cg, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner/ C.E.O : Ms. Aarti Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent/ State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A.
For Respondent No. 3 : None despite service of notice
WPS No. 2269 of 2022
Nanakram Sahu S/o Jodhan Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o
Village Jahorabhata, Post Kundel, Tahsil Kurud, Civil And Revenue
District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin
Vikas Vibhag Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Directorate, Panchayat Avam Samaj Kalyan Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Collector, North Bastar, Kanker, District North Baster Chhattisgarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, North Bastar, Kanker, District
North Baster Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)

2 / 5
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : None
For Respondent/ State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A.
For Respondent No. 4/
C.E.O
: Mr. Utkarsh Soni appearing on behalf of Mr.
Ashish Tiwari, Advocate
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
26/10/2026
WP227 No. 709/2022
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ C.E.O. and learned
counsel appearing for the State/ respondents No. 1 & 2 submit
that the issue involved in this petition has already been
considered and decided by this court in WP227 No. 714/ 2012
and this petition may be disposed off in terms of the order passed
on 17.10.2012 in WP227 No. 714/2012.
2. In WP227 No. 714/2012 this court has passed the following
order:-
“1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner being aggrieved by the order
dated 27-7-2010 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Baster Division, Jagdalpur, in case
No.95/B-121/2009-10 preferred an appeal before the
Principal Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh,
Department of Pachayat & Rural Development. The
said authority without considering the facts on merits
dismissed the appeal by order dated 28-4-2011 holding
that under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh
Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with Rules 3 & 5

3 / 5
of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision)
Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995"), revision is
maintainable.
2. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, the
petitioner, realizing the mistake, preferred a fresh
revision being revision case No.320/Nyaya.
Panch/2011-12. The Secretary without considering the
facts on merits dismissed the revision on 29-2-2012 on
the ground that since the appeal, has been dismissed
earlier this amounts to second revision.
3. Learned counsel next submits that in fact, the petitioner
wanted to file a revision, but erroneously it was marked
as second appeal. The revisional authority ought to
have converted the second appeal into revision and
decided the same on its own merits. Since the appeal
was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, the
petitioner is entitled to prefer a revision under the
provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
State submits that once the second appeal has been
filed, the revision is not at all maintainable and, we
such, the Impugned order is just & proper.
5. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that if
the appeal has not been dismissed on merits, but on
the maintainability that may not be treated as dismissal
of appeal on merits and secondly there is no revision

4 / 5
against the said appeal, but the revision has been filed
by the petitioner against the order dated 27-7-2010,
which was, never decided on merits. There is no bar in
preferring the revision, if the appeal filed earlier was
not maintainable and the same was dismissed on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above, the order dated 29-2-2012 is
hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the
Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh,
Department of Panchayat & Rural Development with a
direction to consider and decide the revision
application, preferred by the petitioner herein, pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law and on its
own merits.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
writ, petition is disposed of.”
8. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the parties and
considering the facts that the identical issue has already been
considered and decided by this court on 17.10.2012 in WP227
No. 714/2012, the order impugned dated 29.02.2012 is hereby
quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Secretary to the
Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Panchayat & Rural
Development with a direction to consider and decide the revision
application, preferred by the petitioner herein, pass an appropriate
order in accordance with law and on its own merits.
9. Accordingly, WP227 No. 709/2012 stands disposed off.

5 / 5
WPS No. 2269/2012
10. Despite repeated calls neither the petitioner appeared nor any
representation is made.
11. During the course of hearing the connected matter, it is apparent
that if WP227 No. 709/2012 will be decided then nothing survives
in the present petition for adjudication.
12. Accordingly, WPS No. 2269/2022 also stands disposed off.
However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to move
suitable application for its restoration, if any cause of action still
survives.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Jyoti