^,,: ,,;'-'f- ':^?^ Petjtion^r Resiaonclerits 'W.IR.N^. %S%'>^0S2005 ,/• .«^ N^/¥^ ^-^y / 'v<vy / .^^M •.o').^1-^'' %W^i.T.. '^i^? ./' ^~\y : •^'.a^,py/:' ^' IVIOharnm^d Ka|dm KKan, Q/'olVl^hainmad HabiidKhan Ageil ^bQLit 38 yeafs,,&^anc:h Grani pqnehayat -SinMliouri, Ttigt8( Pistt. lYlahaSarinyhd nii|fti§gi l.::, |t^^jt.6]|'|h^tti§ggrh,Tt^augh jJs'^j^EJry, OeijJ^j't|rj^(jto); 'l;f^|ic|i,|yatf, IVIa:ni||||^yj, (3X.^. ;Btia'i/Eir|,FiaipUr(C^) 2. Directigr, Panch^yat, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipyr (C6) 3|. :, •Ac)yj1:i6n:81;Goll@c r,_' ; -.;''',^iJJ|;l||||isarrtyt|ff^(a^ 4., ;;.^^rttjffi:|^|u,,,r|;||i|^»!t. .-':,i£J(1u,'-j||J:'a^:||U'pats,:1 :.' •||/|)^J|'|.ihdhG!Mfi,,T^.jS, ii«Itt.-il:iaPi|aSa:murKJ'.((l|if: WRlTpETlT10MUNDEltAFtTliBLE226^22'7 GfflNSnTUTlQNjafflNOlA 003 XI-HC-22 sn^r^iT R-ii+ sn^r shlitiffl^cT TS? •<iNiin<<, »T(1y'ie,Rldiuy 311^1 Msiq» _^S;f..i^^\°^_ K11MI S»l*<|th a^ 200 aii^iswiWflte' Pabcl is.'T.aoos Sliri Sac.hin Siugh Raj] Shri Parag Kotecha, Ps^s Shri Ranbir Siagh Ma| Caveat. Tbc petitionfir has 226/227 of the C-oastitutio^ rcspondcnt No.2 iii not The petitioner's petitioji No.4 coatested the electiol Panchayat Siadhouri, Talisi) tut, coiuisel for the petitioner. Lawvcr for respondcnt No.l to 3. ^rhas, Gouuisel for rcspondent No.4 on dccidltag sionth of Januarv, 2005 Sarpanch. Hoiwcvcr, thcreaf^ under Section 36 of thc allegatioa ttiat third child nottfied date i.e. 26.1.2001. the CoUector reached to tbe thc coia.p1aint arc truc andl fi-om the post 6f Sarpancl|i Pajichayat Raj Adhiriiyam. 4 preferred au appeal befo^- application for stay, but thaf bcing decidcd by rcspondcn|1 rejected the stay applicatioa Coitasel for the petitiojt not consider the birth certilEcate qillFcl'sD-i *<IH<l)'ft'te^<Rf«l< i?3if^rsii^r .. fii'efen'ed this petitian uiider Article of Iiidia beiag aggrieved bv action of thc appeal filcd by thc pctitioner. is that the petitiouer aad respondent ^i for the post of Sai'paiich, Gram & District Mahasamiuid held in tfae which fhe petitioner was eleeted as :r rcspondent No.4 inadc a coinplaint F^achayat Raj Adhiniyam leveUing the [was bora to the petitioner after the On fhat an enquir^t was conducted and conclusion ffaat fhe facts luentioned in ordcicd for rcinoval of thc petitioncr m view of Section 36(l)(m) of (he tgainst the said order the petitioner has responden.t No. 2 atong with an appegl is still pending aad that is not No.2, Howcvcr, respondcnt No.2 bas )f tfae petitioner. icr submits that tfae C-oUeGtor even did issued by the Registiar, Births & XI-HG-22 sn^r^t f^iNisn^r g;iiN;gf?g' ^s^a-^, /•- ^rl.i^ i^' ( ^ »fffl^]ni|!' TSf '<ii<ii<n<i, ®T(I'M'IS,Rcii'yy ITqMrgill^i 3ll^iMach ^-...fe.t^AgAy.lpX t«"$• H^ 200 aii^igwiwBf?cr 2- Deaths. He furthfir Sublnitsl cliarge but the respondents ovcr tfae cliai^c of Sarpaiich. In the cu'cumstaiices, would not be appropriate fo| however, looktng to urgency| tbat respondetit No.2 shall d| at the carlicst not latcr tbad toaav. In view ofthe above, tli< Consequentiy, M.(W.)P.| also stand disposed of. Ccrtificd copy as per atre ^iace the appeal 1s already pendiag it |* the Court to entertaia fhis petition. involved in the Diatter it is expected icide the appeal of the petitioner itself withjba a pcriod of two inonths frosi 1 •• ' ' • ' . • i petition. staiids disposed. No.235b/05 & and I.A. No.5594/05 »l<itn41-lWRff¥te<^t'<Rl«l< ^srf^TSTI^T tbat the petitioner is stffl holctiiig the Hkely to force the petitioner to liaad rulcs Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge . ('fl^y^) BS'