^o^ HIGH COURTOF GHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C1NO. 5075 OF 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2. 3. Bhuneshawar Mirdha.23 Yrs,, S/o Ramdayat Mirdha, R/o Wllage Bancharouda, PS & Teh. Aarang, Dist. Raipur. Versus State of ChhatBsgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Ralpur. Collector, District Raipur. Vihit Pradhikari - SDO, Aarang - Abhanpur, HO @ Raipur. OWrit pefition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Aonihotri, J. Present:- Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the peUUoner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on this 10" day of February, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and vatidity of the order dated 28-8-2006 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector, Raipur, in revenue case No.73/8-121/2005-06 (Bhwieshawar Midha vs. State of Chha sgarh), whereby the appeal fited by the petitioner has been rejected. 2) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected Sarpach of Gram Panchayat Bancharauda. No confidence motion was carried out against the petitioner and for the said purpose nottee dated 28-6-2006 (Annexure-P/2) was served on him stafing to attend fte no confidence motion proceedingson 5-7-2006 at 11.00 a.m. Learned counsel further submits that the notice was not served on the petitioner in accordance witti law. Even at the eteventh hour the place of meeting was also changed and the no confidence mofion against the petitioner was carried out. Against Uie sajd proceedings, the petifioner raised an election dispute before fte Collector, Raipur, underSwUon 21 of ttie Chhattisgarh PanchayatR<u Adhiniyam, 1993 (for ^mrt the Adhiniyam, 1993°), which has been rejected by the Collector without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in ite letter and spirit. 'L-' ^\ Gowri 3) Per confra, leamed counselappearing for the State supported the impugned order passed by the Collector and submits that no objection was raised by the petiUoner with regard to time of notice or change of place during the no confidence moKon proceedings and thereafteralso. 4) I have heard leamed counsel appearing for ttie petitioner, perused the pleadings and the documents appended Uiereto. White pessing the impugned order e Collector observed Uiat ttie notice has been properly served on the petitioner after following the due procedure i.e. well within the stipulated period. The notice has also been afRxed on the doore of the house ofthe petitioner in presence of two witnesses. Even opportunity of hearing was also afforded to Uie pefitioner at the time of no confidence motion proceedings and the same was carried out in accordance witti law. 1 have found that this is not a case where any objecUon was raised by th®petitioner during the no confidence motion proceedings and thereafter before filing a reference to e Collector. 5) Be that as it may, since the petitioner has participated m the no confklence motion proceedmgs without raising any objedion tothe notice, he has no n'ght to challenge ttie proeedure of issue of notice after the motion is carried out against him. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Collector is unexceptionable, just & proper warranting no interference. 6) Itiswell-nighestabtishedthatthisCourtinexerciseofitssupervisory jurisdiction under Articte227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain iteelf from interfering with ttie order passed by the Courts betow, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdicttonal error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 7) In view of fte foregoing, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ———-. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge