i ,^& -A") SiftQJeBenoh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. <^ WRIT PETITION% N0. !^ a of 2009 E 'ETITIONER ^^5'sfff1^^^ ^ Vs RESPONDENTS ^ ^>'^ Kumar Dheewar, son of Shri Uttar Kumar, aged about 33 years, Acting Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Achola, Tehsil and District Mahasamund \Q.^^ ^ ^' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. «^? 2. The Director, Panchayat Chhattisgarh, Raipur^G.^J 3. The Collector, District Mahasamund. /4. The Additional Collector, District Mahasamund. ^<<^j b. The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Mahasamund (CG) '6. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund (CG) 7. Bishat Ram, son of Chataru Ram Dhruv, aged about 56 years, resident of Village Achola, District Mahasamund.^^^ 2.<2.7 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE-^^OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^' \^ voW/ ^x/ -<F-3—- -fl)^^ '^T'fe^it^ ^TOT'^IW W<ia< S8»^S<?» 7^ ^l^ld^, ^Tl1<4^1<o, [®l<rlS^^< >- c^^^^y30/^ ^.^....i:......v....r.....:...<....'.;.r...^:.^2oo -^I^T .(l^?S@9<i?) i^iiW^^3?il^| SB: HON'BLB JUSTICfl 29-6-2009 • Shii Dinesh R.K. Tiwt ShriA.S. Kachhawahls Heard on adniission. 2. The Sub Divisioaal passed io. Paachayat cas| Paiichayat Achhola rcniove^l of Sarpanch and also disq^ be elected as such under the Act).' This order was statutoiy appeal filed undej the Act before the Collecllor Officer was stayed uiider Appeal) RiUes, 1995 (briefl^ order. The petitioner hereii^ Director Paiichayat io. Revi^ion groiind'-that after removal was appoiated as acting Si iiitermi order passed by the| 3. ShriTiwari, leamed once the petitioner has b.e< the Collector has no auth< ui, Advocate fbr fhe petitfoner. a, Advocate, for tlie State. ^i^f^"^ ^ITR^? ^ fe^ ifa^K •^a^H^^T N,K,,AGARWAL Officer vide order dated 28-1-2009 No. 27A/89 year 2007-08 viUage the respondeiit No. 7 froin th.e post isli&ed hioi for a periodof6 years to t±ie Panchayat Raj Adhiiiiyam (briefly issailed by the respondent No. 7 iii the rules frained iinder Sectiou 91 of aiid order of fhe Sub Divisional [Rule 8 of Panchayat (Revision and the rules. of 1995) by way of iaterini. challenged fhe stay order before the Case No. 240/A-89/08-09 on the 2|f the responcleiit No. 7, the petitioner - 3|panch ia his place aad, therefore, the. ;|Additioual Collector was bad, ^unsel for ;the petitioner subniits fhat IH appointed as officiatnig Sarpaiich, ^rity to stay tlie order passed by tlie ^KN^r ^^N ^UK^ <i^i^iM—FS/9S—11/2008—1,00,000. ,--TS'- 1 B f. T I- '^..... '^•:'..^ ^? ^rfeN? ^I?^¥liP?W -3^r -^i^Kn^, ^Til-H^Ko, f®i<nt-(-i^< •t(WWW»IS«K •-^200 ^l^T ^^T.(111??S<S8^1) 'i^iwefer 3??^i Sub Divisional Officer. For t|iat, of High. Court of M.P, m KajiashaSTa -v- Additioaal CoUector, 1998(1) MPLJ 418, wliich i^ Act whereby it has beeu he^ that a persou agaiast whoii^ ceases to function and ceasl authority functiontag unde| under the Rules which coib-e caiinot stay such a declar^tion that. the streaoi caiinot go h^ 4, Section 91 ofthe Adt^niysc Rule 8 ofthe C.G. Panchay^t provides that against the o^der before the Collector an.d, before tlie Director Paachay^t as revisional authority may| against'• diirmg pendeucy 4 wifh.in fheir power. 5, So far as the case lal there is difference 'between. the Act. Section 21 of tll confidence Biotion, which is| ^Fit^ft^ 'HR^f ^ "fe^ iN^R ^^tftH^l^T , reMaiice is placed upou judgnieut Bai RamesSa ChaBd Pateria Chhatarpiir assd others reported m a case relating to Section 21 of the d by Siagle Bench of the High Court inotion ofno confidence is passed is es to hold office forthwifh. Revisional p Ryle 8 ia exercise of power given uuder the subordiaaiy legislatiou L. .It is well establlshed prmciple tgher than the source. ^niyam. read with Rule' 3, Rule 5 aad (Appeal aiid Revision) Rules, 1995, of S.D.0.5 appeal is maiatamable Ifhereailer- revision is 2iiamtaiaable aiid' fhe appeUate authority as weU |stay execution offhe order appealed \f appeal or revision, whiclz is well ^T cited by Shri Tiwari is concemed,- ISection 21 ofAct.aad Section 40 of [e Act deals wifh. resolzition of no not 0ji oxder passed by the autliority ^TO^T ^^k ^U^<1^-<K41M—FS/95—11/2008—1 ,00,000. ^si^i ^?'R?5rNT 'OTT^l^l^RN? 1Wqi?11 »*18<1» Tosr r^i<Lii<n^, ^Ti1<4^<o, f®i<ni^^< ^ (^^ ^6 30^0 /6^ "•^200 l^ -3T5^T .('^3^?) I^iW^ft^^l^ ^ under fhe Act aad once a to be stayed. In the iasta^t specific order has been p| both the pai-ties, which Sectiou 21 of the Act was | but ouly a reference was ^] (4) axid, therefore, the a applicable ia the iiistaat ca|se 6. Relevant provisions reads thiis: "40. Removal ©foffi<| (2)- A person who (1) shall forthwith Panchayat ofwhich tj be disqualified for a- this Act." 7, A bare perusal of 40(2) of the Act would sho\ resoliitiou passed by the deBionstrates the confideii< fhe grsiu pao.chayat, Act deals with efiect of siib-section (2) of tih-e Act| where^s renlioval W^ ^ fe^ ^N^R ^^R3^T 'esolution is passed, uofhiag reniajns case, under Section 40 of fhe Act, issed by the authority after hearmg |is appelaable. Order passed uiider |not inade appeUable uuder fhe Rules rovided under Section 21 sub-section l.se law cited by Shri Tiwad is not cafse. c|ontaiiied ia Section 40 sub-section (2) ?e bearers of has been reinoved under sub-sectioir ?ase. '.to be a m.em.ber of any other le.is a niem.ber, siich person shall also ^eriod ofsix years to be elected under pr^visions contamed io. Section 2 1 and i^ that while section' 21 deals wifh a Ipmichas of grant paiicliayat, which |le or 110 confidence of fhe panchas of ?re^s sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the order passed under Section 40 which has penal consequence and, ^ire^f ^^N ^"K^ o^i^ii^— FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. •^^ ..-•-'-^ ^ , 1 %. ^/ ^-^x^'" ^ir-^Tk^ ?r^iw^?'^jw fcNlilNSBlNN^ ?/ 'S^T "Hi^id^, ydl •(-i^Ko, f®ldl'yj,< UJ P C<^rz-7^^°- 3°^°/<53 *11<ICTI »*<8®t)""""""""""""""""""""""""""^^200 ^T^I ^^F.('l^?1^<^) i^iw^^^s^r .^(- tlierefore, it camiot be said which caii be said to be tlie autb.ority is not empowered 8. It is weU settled prmci|3le of its supei-visory jurisdi Constitution of India, shou] tlie order passed by the Coi perversity, iUegality or junsd|i offhe record, which is not 14 9. In view of the abo^ szibstance, the same desen|r admission stage. However, disposed of as early as po^ monfhs from the date ofprcjdu ^Rta^^ ^[fwff ^ fe^ <f^^i< ^3fSN^I^T Ihat ia appeal med unaer The Rules ^ontmuation of the proceedmgs, the j:o graxit stay of order. oflaw tliat this Court, m exercise stion under Article 227 of the Id refraia itself from iaterfermg with Irt below except in such cases where lictional error is writ large on the face the prese.nt case. \e discussion, the petition has no ks to be and is hereby dismissed at tt is directed that fhe appeal may be [sible prcferably withm a period of 3 ofa copy offhis order. fprcjduction Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ?ro^? ^^T %^n^r<^Rr^t^—Fs/95—i i /2008-1,00,000.