Ei' ^ c IN THE HIGM COUKE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^••"(C.G.l. ' ,. 'l '•: -: :• ' .• .. • .-'.'..•.•' : • : W8IT PETmQN N0. i915~l /2604 EEtTriONER / \oly^ .^'^ ',A':1- ••::^^ ''w^ -'.''..e'^.1.1"'11 :^.^':1':^ .^'^::':''''/" <<^>;:,'.-.:;:;' Smt. Hem BaiGhpuhan, aged about 30 years, wife of ^el.-/<?'l..Ashri Bhogaal Chouhan, <'/Y/l''^!^ yresident of yillage BOMDA DeveloprHent Block Pusaur, Tehsil Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) RESPQNDENTS '^ERSUS :1. i, ^ t^jE^N'ATURE-iOF ,t.~,Bl^'iQPRIA'FE':".:;J: ^ ^^ ^<. ' '":^ ' _,F-^^ The Director, PanGhayat, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Collector, Raigarh, Collectorafe, Raigarh (CG) The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the SeGretary, Department of Pancfaayat, D.K. S. Bhawari, RaiF>iir. WWS PEnTElON UNI3ES , AR'EieLES 226/227 OF THE ^NSTrmTl0N;0FlN]l !;r9s6.;Fx^issi^ ^CER^GS?Aia, MANI3AMU& E^ Q8D@%; ^ ORIDERS. DIRECEIQN / Maythisplease^tpyQurLordstltp. *. . .: • • . '• :. ' •' " ^'.'': ••.: •" • •".'. •.•'••••. '• • •.'•'' ' • • • . ' . . ' . 1" :•'••••.''•'•'•.'•' 01) j PAI^CUIARS QEBFME EE'FITID'NER:- -— ; • The petitioner is^ a lady belong^ iste afid ^e lia3i|t)een elecfed as a Sa^pancb|of G-rani ^^^^' '^^F'^TTTf^Sr^^ "^ NSNCTi Si*13>8° ^ r;^, r'ei' ^Tt^fTj-. 'gi'tJRFTg', M(-T?TiTC o -\??.A...A.AS.'<....l.O.>-i. '?nC ^y ^a^'^^? '^y&^S' / T'f'^T' ^?"3]'''^^'i 'ui7'Ji^ i IL1^ S^;r;f ^T l^iT^ y's^ <?Ti?Fi ^^n^T 'svim "RTsg snys '^PTi'cT^f ^py?ff '^ ^S^ 'd^i'^T? %3flgii<SK?a 22.07.2004 i Shri M.D. Shanna, couitsel for the petitioner. Shri Saujay S Agarwal, (povt. Advocate for the State. Heard. j The petitioner has pre^rred fhis wnt petition under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution 'pf India being aggrieved by fhe final order dated 29.03.2004 (Am^exure P-2) passed by fhe CoUector under Section 36 ofC.G. Pan^hayat Raj Adhituyam, 1993 wheieby the petitioner was declared iqeligible to be an o£&ce bearer of fhe Panchayat on accoi.uit of givic|g birth to 5th child in violation offhe condition laid down under Se4tion 31 (l)(m) ofthe Act and also fhe order dated 08.06.2004 (AaAexuTe P-1) passed by the Director, Panchayat whereby the Dir^ctor while entertaining the appeal .1. sysdnst the order of fhe Col^fector dated 29.03.2004 rejected the application for grantof iiitertc^ relieffiled by the petitioner. Leamed counsel for thej petitioner subinits that fhe CoUector conceraed without giviag reaponablc opportunity to the petitioner passed fhe order dated 29.08.2004, ^auist which fhe petitioner had preferred ao appeal befo^e the Director, Panchayat along wifh an application fer stay and thi the appeal, which is stiB p( Director, Panchayat while admittiag nding, refused to graat the stay ia favour of the petitioner. He further subnutted that siace fhe said appUcation has been rejected wffl aBFect fhe rights of th^ aad appeal is not being decided, that petitioner. Therefore, fhe Director, Pauchayat inay be directed toldecide fhe appeal ofthe petitioner. XI-HC—78 Wffsn^rg^w Roshan/- '3^^fPTRI?l,^^teTTTS,' 'Ridiy^t ;3)^W'q? (- -s WifepfrTlIItRtf '$fS^S 'riW^TC '^giSw.mtei . Having faeardTtbe'KaBart "coi^Cl-fiHTtlie yarttes-iiUtl Iisiyiug regard -to the feGte and cirCTJimstances of fhe case, smce fhe DiiBctor, Panchayat vide prdet dated 8.6.2004 rejeGtedthestay applieatioD, of the petitionfir ai^d the matter relEttes to the removal of fhe petitioner ^ Sarpanch, liherefQre, lopkiag to the uigea.cy of tbe inatter, fh.e leanied Duccfa^r ought to have decidcd fhe appeal itself rafher deciding the stew tfais order. Wifh fhe above direction,| ecmsequen.tly, M.W.P. Pioj |application. T'hfirefore, in t^ caTcluastaaGes, thfi Director, I^ncha^t is ilirected to decide fhe appcal filcd. by'fhe petitmner ^n aGcordance wifh law e®eaify as possible preferably wittun ainjmfh flxaa Ihe dafe oftbe i^e^ of thc petitioa stends disposed of. 1751/2004&I.A.NQ.4572/04also staud dispbsed of ^ ^Certffied^cojy as per rttlc^. Sd/- LC.Bhadoo ' Judge