:-HC-22 w^r^? R^Jch <3?IT^T s^Hicb 'Hff^T , 4 U1 ~3^[ ^|<41d<4, ^Tll^^Ko. fa<rtl<l^< 3?T^T ^f^K ^IT^^-u;)f@"^^^ 20og 'I^ST' ^T[^T'^TT^R ^Tr PETiTIONER Pyarila about Kirari. Dlstrict Chandra, S/o Kartikram Chandra, aged |27 years, Secretary, Gram Panchayat |R/o Village Kirari, Tahsii Malkharouda, IJanjgir-Champa (CG) -Verslis- RESPONDENTS 1. State Janjgir| 2. Sub D|'jvisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, District Janjgirj-Champa (CG) 3. Santo< Sarpa Kirari, Cham 5. Deput Janj'gjr (Writ Petition under Arti SB: HON. SHRI DHIRENDRA 2-12-2008:- and2. Shri Awadh Tripathi, Smt. Smita Ghai, Pan^i Heard. CM^lf<rt<flrl 'WT^lf^ ftT^t <p3i^i< '^'3ri;W3^1^T |of Chhattisgarh through the Collector •Champa, District Janjgjr-Champa (CG) h Kumar S/o Krushnkumar Chandra; ich, Gram Panchayat Kirari, R/o Viilage Tahsi! Malkharouda, District Janjgir- >a (CG) 4. Shashj Bhushan Bareth, Ex-Sarpanch, Gram Panch^yat Kjrari, Tahsli Maikharouda, Djsfrict Janjgir(-Champa (CG) Dlrector, Panchayat and Social Welfare, 1-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) jcle 226 of the Constitution of India) IMISHRA.J co^nse! for the petitjoner. Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 [^t^ ^n-^^f ^ HC-22 «s^ ^y ^TT^T'^T Rrli<=b 371^T 5ti*iich ^a P^^N^- I- \^ '3^f r^ll<Llld<LI, ^Tll^i^Ko, f®l<rtl<i^< 3ni^T 'W^K ^i^di ^qf^p-—•—••———•——•••—'^F^ 200 •f^^T' ^^fflT^ ^ WM^^^^R The case of the petitioner |s that in response to advertisement issued by Gram Panchayat Kirari |he petitioner and 7 others submltted thelr appilcation - for appolntment | Panchayat. Gram Panchayat Kir^ dated 11-5-2006 resoived to appcj Panchayat. The Gram Sabha in it^ P/4) approved the proposal of Gr^ post pf Secretary of Gram Panch^ Panchayat Karmi/Secretary of Gr^ 28-8-2006 of Annexure-P/5. The WeSfare, respondent No.5, vide petitioner as Secretary of Gram powers under Section 69 (1) of] Sh^ishi Bhushan Bareth, Sahayak| was directed to hand over the ch^ ..order of Annexure-P./?. dated 1 3-1: o,n the post of Secretary of Gram |ri yide its resoiution of Annexure-P/3 ^int the petltjoner as Secretary of the meeting dated 24-8-2006 (Annexure- |m Panchs.yat for appointment on the tyat. He was thereafter appointed as |m Panchayat Kirari vide order dated peputy Director Panchayat and Socia! brder of Annexure-P/6 deciared the 3anchayat Klrari whiie exercising the the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and Gram Panchayat Adhikari (Secretary) rge of Secretary to the petitioner vide 2-2006 and accordingly, the petitioner took the charge on 12-1-2007 and| communicated the same to the Chlef :Execirtive Officer, Janpad Pancllayat Malkharoda vlde Annexure-P/8 dated 12-1-2007. However, on . Annexure-P/2 canceJled a!i thel ^ppea.S''preferred 'by the' Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kirari, the S!i|ib Divisional Officer vide order of proceedings with respect to the appointment of the Secretary on |ha ground that resolution No.9 of the Gram Sabha by whlch Panchayat| resoiutlon 11 -5-2006 has been approved on-the of"fabric|3tlon of entries in the Gram Sabha ^r' ,y3s^^ s^^ '"^ 1 la-HC-22: 1 'v''ssiy' J,l %. ^.:....^:^ ^ ^n^T-^T ^icb 371^T 5h^icr> ^f^a 1^' ^a? ^l^l<yl<LI, ^Tll^^Ko, fa^ll^y ^n^r 'q^ra? *<l*1€(11 ^^^••••*——————————•—^F^ 200 ^R^T' ^TT^T'^IT^R ^rf^T -<s register dated 24-8-2006. In th^ against the order of the Sub Divis| canceiiation of resoSution No.9 of|the proceedjngs on the 'basis of aforetald of resolution of the Gram PanchayNt iilegai and to that extent the order Learned counsej for the pef that no appeaS lies against the res SDO and, therefore, the order| jurisdlction and the Courts bel| resolution No.9 ofthe Gram Sabh^. No 9 was already acted upon and| by the Deputy Director vlde of pr^ferred bythe Sarpanch ofthe of the Gram Sabha was not maJrlt the Deputy Director declaring impugned, the SDO and the resolution ofthe Gram Sabha andl From perusal of the Tmpugrted the petitioner has not questionecp proceedlngs dated 24-8-2006 of averments of the writ petit'ion, it claimed that the resoiution of the duiy approved by the Gram cr»i^<n<fl'i ^i^i<yif'^ f^l<l <n»i<^i< '^3rf^PT3TT^T revision preferred by the petitioner |onal Officer, the Collector has upheid Gram Sabha and the subsequent resoiution. However, cancellation dated 11-5-2006 has been declared (3f SDO has been set aside. ptioner submjtted that it is settled law ^olutlori of the Gram Sabha before the passed by the SDO was without Ijow were not justlfied in canceiing He further submitted that resoiutlon the petitloner was dedared Secretary (•der of Annexure-P/6. The appea! pram Panchayat agajnst the resolution '|tainab!e. Since subsequent orders of petitioner as Secretary was not were not competent to quash [subsequent proceedings. order Annexure-P/1, it Is seen that the allegation of interpoiation jn the Gram Sabha. From perusat of the observed that the petitloner bas not pram Panchayat dated 11-5-2006 was >abha and the allegatlon regarding yie Cdilector llhe K^.^ r I, ,^;ii^ ^^ys% ^m^ Jj XI-HC-22. ^.! ^/ ^. -^ ^^ ^S( ^liqi^q^ ^Tll^^Ko, facrll^y ^ sn^r XR^ ^i^toir 5b^ff^ "^l 200 I^ST' 3n^r'^r f^Tw^n^T 9t)^icb <if^a pw Barve n^?T ^l^j ^<11W ^rf^T -^ interpolation is incorrect and fais^ scrutiny of the resoiution of the recorded a finding of fact that appointing the petitioner as Secrs interpolation and fabrication in the In the circumstances, I do error committed by the Courts jnterference by this Court in exerci of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of ^ dismissed and It is hereby dismiss^ Both the Courts betow after ciose Gr^m Sabha and other documents have [resolution of the Gram Panchayat ^tary (Sachiv) has been approved by t>roceedings book ofthe GramSabha. |iot see any illegaSity or jurisdictional begow of such a nature which warrants i^e of writ jurisdiction under Artfole 226 cbi^f<n<i1i ^i+i<yiT'? fs^ <F5i^i< '^'3^TH3TI^r ubstance, the same deserves to be id- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge