SINGLE BfltfCW IN THE HQN'BLB HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASFUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.^^ OF 2011 PETITIONER; ^ ^<v/{.. ^L>'.^^ ^.^v A ^ ^.'•••1.' l.Ram Prasad S/o Fudru, aged about 60 years, Caste-Raut (Yadav),R/o Village- Udka, Village-Panchayat - Tarwarpur ,Tahsil- Mungeli. 2. Shriram Chandrakar S/o Araoli , aged about 55 years, Caste-Kurmi,R/o Village 8s Pnchayat - Tarwarpur ,Tahsil- Mungeli ,District Bilaspur , C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS; 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, Secretary Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Sub Divisional officer (R) Mungeli ,District Bilaspur .C.G. 3. Teldas S/o Khelan Caste -Satnami ,aged about 35 years R/o Village- Udka,Village -Panchayat - Tarwarpur ,P.H.No-ll,Tahsil- Mungeli ,District Bilaspur , C.G. 4. Yugal Kishor, Tahsildar of Urvasha and Returning . officer ,Village panchayat election in 2010,0ffice of Tahsildar-Mungely, District Bilaspur , (C.G). L] ; !' *• WRIT PETITIQN _UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "fllTR;i;,.^,;,,!^J- :':;:a'3,. "^ •r/'-^ '^ ;:'- •*"w"s?'>. '• %~.s^^ HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPIJR PETmONER WRIT PETITION (C) No. 4445 of20U Ram Prasad & Another. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PE'ITHON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSlTIimONOF INDIA SB:.Hon'Me Shn SatisAK, Agnihotri, J, Present: Shri A.K.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. 5hri Sfaashank Thakur, Paae! Lawyer for fhe State/respondent No 1 and 2. 'assed oa 09ttl da;< ofAugust, 2011) the oetitioners seeks a direetion to the Sub Divisional Qfficer (Revenue) Mungeli, to decide the case within prescribed period as the same is pending since 18.03.2011. 2. Leamed counsel a.ppearuig for the petitioners submits that tlie petitioners have filed an applicatioa under section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 betbre the Sub Divisional Qfficer (Revenue) Mungeli for removal of the respondent No. 3 from the post of Sarpanch, on 27.03.2010 (Annexure P/4). The same was replied by the respondent No. 3 on 20.07.2010 (Annexure P/5). The matter was fixed before the respondent No. 2 on 18.03.2011 and thereafier, on 31.03.2011. Shri Yadav farther submits that the matter is still pending consideration but fhe same is not being decided by fhe respondent No. 3. 3. Qn the other hand,'Stm Thakur, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respoadent No. I and 2 submits that if the case of' the petitioaei-s is pending consideration, tiie same will be decided in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 4. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings appended thereto. The prayer ofthe petitioner is to directthe respondent No. 2 to decide the case within prescribed period as the same is pending since 18.03.2011. No time frame can be fixed to conclude fhe proceedings pending before the respondent No. 2 as to decide the case without affbrding proper opportunity ofhearing to tlie parties, examination and cross exanunation ofwitnesses, which may take some time. However, it is expected fhat the responderrt No. 2 shall consider and decide fhe case oftfae petitioners as expeditiously as possible. fhe aforesa.id obsefvation and direction, the writ petition is ^itish K. Agniliotn Judge Amit E !?r 1rifF'"'7inri''~-TB?T^3.^?sw;?y^t^^^(i^^^|^^^^^^^g^