.^'.'^-iA./"1.. .... ^.-1 ^'^f!"^\^ :• "' .1r^i^"'_ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P, (C\No.S5QO /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS /. 1) ^.^^ 6S-:' ^.--•«;/:'y:..-r';'T'^U.- .^--•:""^^7'c7).-l-ASA"" I;^Myl'J^-'-"""' ^,es« ^awA--:' €s^^^^ 's^1'^ ~; :2) 3) *•»?. Ten Singh Patel, S/o. Shri Purushottam Patel, aged about 46 years, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhanwarpur R/o. Bhanwarpur, Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Versys State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat 8s Social Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhavan, Manta-alaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Sub Divisional Officer Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Krishna Kumar, S/o. Shri Om Prakash, Aged about not known, R/o. Village Bhanwarpur, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER_ARTICLE _ 226 _ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR_ ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI^ MANDAMUS, ECT AND OR/NECESSARY DIRECTIONS .>:»<,§ i/ Af^ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETiTION (ONo. 5590 OF 201 1 Ten Singh Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others ashott jWrit Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri M.D.Dhote, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed onthis 21st day of September, 2011) 1. The petitioner impugns nofice dated 03 August, 2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Sub Divisional Officer -cum- Prescribed Officer (Panchayat) in apptication filed under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,1993. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisiona! Officer without having Jurisdiction to entertain Uie application under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, has issued a show cause notice, without specitying the allegations and,as such, the notice is illegal and deserves to be quashed. 3. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is of 1he view that the Sub Divisional Officer has no competence or jurisdiction to entertain an application under SecUon 40ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993, or show cause notice does not contain the allegations, as required under the provisions of law, the petitioner may reply to the said notice questioning the jurisdictionofthe authority, or validity of show cause notice, before approaching this Court. At this stage, no interference is warranted. as no cause of action has arisen on issue of notice. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, as there is no merit in this case. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge