£N 'I‘HQL—LIGX—l COURT OF CHHA’I”I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR wIiLBegggnAg 495:1g1‘22Qé WRIT pE’I‘ITON UNDER AR’I‘ICLE 22b1ggg£jggig CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) (Passed on this Febzuaxy, 2909} The patitioner has Iiled this petition challenging the order dated 25.10.2004 (Annexure F12), passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Appeal Case No. 130/A— 89103-04 (Smt. Sursan Bai Vs. Couector &. another); Lealned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitiOner is an elected Smpanch of Gram Panchayat. Amoxa. Pn‘or to him, the respondent No.4 (S1111. Sm‘sari Bai) was holding the post of Saxpanch; After tamng over the charge of the post of Sarpanch the petitioner tiled a complaint that the respondent No.4 has not submitted vouchers for the period of 1998 to 1999 for a sum of Rs. 1,64‘870f— and for the year 1999—2000 for a sum of Rs. 2,69,196/—. 1n the special audit serious irregularities were found, thus a Show cause notice was issued and pmceedings were drawn against the respondent No.4. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate With Shri Siddarth Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Shii Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Petitioner Ram Kumar Suryavanshi, S/o Ramdas SL113? vanshi, aged 35 years, r/o Village Amma (Mahant), District Janjgir-C‘hampa (CG) Versus Respondents 1. Director, Panchayat, Chhatlsgarh, Raipur (CG) A Collector, 3. Janigir [c.G.) Chief Executive Oflicer, Janpad Panchayat, Janjgir(C.G.) 4. Smt. Stusari Bai, EX-Saxpanch, Panchayat Amora, Janpad Panehayat <g§ By order dated 6.5.2004 (Annexum P/ 1), passed by the Collector in Case No. 1 1 / A—89] 200 1—2002 the respondent No.4 was directed to deposit Rs. 2,20,01824. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Director, Pancayat. By the impugned order dated 25. 10.2004 (Annexure P/ 2) the matter was remanded back to the Collector for deciding afresh after prov1ding proper opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner impugns the order dated 25. 10.2004 [Annexure P] 2) on the ground that he was not impleaded a party in the appeal and the respondent No.4 was allowed proper opportunity of hearing in the proceedings before the Collector. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 1t appears that the direction for recovery of amount by the Collector is based on the special audit report. The grievance of the respondent No.4 in appeal was that she was not allowed to put forward her defence when the allegation about irregularity and misappropriation ofhuge amount was levelled against her. Thus, l do not tind any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 25. 10.2004, remanding the matter for a fresh decision after ajlbrding proper opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.4, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. if the petitioner has any grievance, he may tile appropriate application before the Collector, in accordance with law, if so advised. Thakur In View of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition and the same is. dismissed. Sd/- Satish . Agnihoui K Judge