HLGH CQURT OFCHHATTiSGARH : 81LASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 2238 OF 2004 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Shant! Thakur, W/o Roopnath Thakur, aged about 41 years, Sarpanch, Grara Panchayat, Charama, Dist. Kanker (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Principa! Secrstary, Ospartment of Gram Panchayat, Mantraiaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Coliector, Djstrict Kanker (CG). 3. Sub Divisional Ofticer, Kanker (CG). 4. Amrit Dewangan, Up- Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat.Charama, Dlst. Kanker(CG), (Writ pstition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihofri, J. Present:- Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, eounsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 27th day of July, 2009) 1. l-leard tearned counset for the parties. 2. The petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Charama, Dist. Kanker, by order dated 30-11-2SX)2 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kanker, wherein the petitioner was found guilty under the provisions ofSection 40 (1) ofthe Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 3. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Coiiector, Kanker. The Collector by order dated 10-7-2003 (Annexure - P/9) after having examined at! the facts of the case dismissed the appeal. Thereagainst, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Director (Panchayat), Chhattisgarh. The Director also, by order dateci 3-7-2004 (Annexure - P/1), i"gi8il::a 5. -'z/- dismissed the revision upholding the orders passed by the Sub Divisional OfRcer as well as Collector. Thus, friis petition. The petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Charama, Dist. Kanter on 30-11-2002. The petitioner was elected to the post of Sarpanch in the year 1999. Even the term of the petitioner came to an end in the year 2004. Thus, the petition has become academic. No que^tion in vacuum can be ctecided. Even otherwise, the reasons stated by the Direetor (Panchayat) as well as the Collector are just & proper and do not warrant interference of this Court. In the resuit, tHe writ petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. ; 6. Consequently, M.(W.).P.No.1994 of 2004 i's dismissed. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge