m THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASRVHK’” rmanand, son of Shri Bhuwan Verma, aged about 30 years, (EX. PETITIONER Sarpanch), Gram Panchayat Surajpura (Van), B1ock Development — Sa / Lohara, Tah and Distt. Kabirdham (01d Kawardha), Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Q. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PU ‘a f RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : Collector, Distt. f /./;:°' V " Kabirdham (old Kawardha), ,..‘;.’-%'¢x_¥" Chhattisgarh. \&‘~’¥?§v' .EO§‘ fd’ Sunderlal I ’ V Sahu, son of Shri I .EO§‘ we g? Thaanwar Sahu, Up—sarpanch, ~§f Gram ' Panchayat Surajpura (Van), Block Development Sa / Lohara, Tah. And Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgar Xi'Hc-22- 39K Mg DB: Hon’bk Juntlce K. H. N. K & Hon’bk Justice L. C. 3had o, J. 15I10I2003 Petiu'oner by Shri Ashok Da Vaishnav, AdvocalJe. Respondent No. I by Shri uni! Sinha, Additional Advocatt General. By this writ petition Constitution of India the tiu‘oncr hast: “challenged the constitmional validitv and the Chham'sgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gmm Swami Adhnnvam, 1993 (for short ‘thé Adhiniyam} which lays doWii’ théf‘no personushall be ch‘gible to be an o$ce-bcaxer of the Panchayat who has more than two /living children one of whom is horn on or after 2&1“ day of’ Januaxy, 2001. The challcngc to the abovc clause docs not stuvivc in view of the law laid down by the Fion’blé Apex Court in the case of Javed and other: Vo. State of «yum and other: reportad in 2003 AIR 80W 3892 and also 'm View‘of the older passed‘by this Court in the case of Yuhm Ghhattisprh and ag’other passe in Wtit Petition No. 463 of 2002. gm IL a?» 5'3 OJ. r er Arh'cles 226/227 of the Kumer Sahu Ve.‘ st te of [thew wag“awsmw “aea ‘ s of‘S‘ection 36 (1)(m) of the ‘ “ ’XLHc-zz .