HiGl-i COURT OF CHfiA’i"l‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 752 01’2004 RESPONDENTS : # PETITIONER : Shivan Singh S/o late Bakiev Singh, agad 55 years, Caste Gonde R/o village Basaha, EX-Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Basaha, Tahsil & District Biiaspur (CG). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Panchayat, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Board 0fRevenue, CG, Bi1aspur, Bilaspur (CG). Collector, Bilaspur, Bilaspur (CG). S.D.O. Bilaspur, Bilaspur (CG). Tahsildar, Bilaspur, Bilaspur (CG). Santosh Kumar 8/0 Sudhoram Gaada, At present Kotwar village Basaha R/o village Basaha, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226f227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotl'L J.) Present : Shri Atul Pandeyi Advocate for the petitioner. bO‘towUz- Shri Bhaskar Fyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed an 20‘“ day at October, 2003) l. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. Bythis petition, the petitioner challenges the legality anti validity of the order dated 18.08.2003 (Annexure-A), passed by the Board of Revenue, and further an inquiry may be directed. U) . The respondent No, 6 was Kotwar of village Basaha Gram Panchayat Basaha, Tahsil & Distt. .Bilaspur. A complaint was tiled by the petitioner (the then Sarpanch) against the respondent No. 6. The Tahsildar registered a case and passed thevorder of removal on 03. 12.1997 (Annexure-D). 4. The Sub Divisional ()fticen Bilaspur (for short ’SDO'), dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent N0. 6 by order dated 13.04.1998 (Annexure-C). Thereaiier, the matter was taken up before the Court of Additional Collector, .Bilaspur. The Additional Collector, on 29,092001 (Annexure-B), allowed the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.04. 1998, passed by the SDO, and remanded back the matter to the authority below, observing that the Sarpanch and other complainants/villagers be impleaded as party respondents and the case be considered on merit, thereafter. . Being aggrieved, the respondent 'No. 6 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board ofReve‘nue, after having considered all the facts of the case, held that the Additional Collector has no power to remit back the matter to the SDO to implead Sarpaneh and other villagers as party respondents and pass the order in accordance with law. Thus, it was found that the order dated 29.09.200l was without jurisdiction and accordingly revision was allowed and the order dated 29.09.2001, passed by‘ the Additi onal Collector was quashed, 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Additional Collector is just and proper, therefore, an inquiry he initiated and the Police/OBI. be directed to take action against the concerned officers. m . The petitioner has not made out a case as to how the Sarpanch and other villagers are necessary party for impleadment when the Tahsildar has considered all the facts on the basis of complaint made by the Sarpanch, and passed the order of removal. lt is not necessary to implead the Sarpanch and other complainant/villagers of the Gram Panchayat, Basaha, as party respondents, wherein, the petitioner was working as Kotwar. When the 7,,1; _7 , j Q7 mawer has been dacided on merit. There is no in&mity, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Board of Revenue. The order is just, proper and wanants no interference. 8. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Couit below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sau'sh K. Agnihotri i 7 a Judge Sahu