,s -^'/ y / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BI^ffSHIR (C.G.) W.P.NO. '2-'2^-'^- QW 2003 / BSTWSEN / Vlshwa Aarat sunkar S/o Makhan Lal ainkar, ageS about 39 years» Secretary Grani Panchayat Plpar Vhvtti, Tehsil / Lonni^Janpad Panehajat Lonni. resldentof Vlllage ggWa^ur ,~0rgm Paicfiayat u-tl,Tehsil E»Hni» Sistricfe Bil^spur -(.6^I< / - ..••^<^s 1^-^^' -^^••^ 0-,A PETITICTTER A N D .•".^^ ^•^"^" T-^ ..••"' ^J^-'" yifl 1. The state of chhat-fclsgarfi> Throuc?li the Secretary repartrnent of Panchayat Mantralay, D.K.S.Buildlng Rafeur, Tehsil and District Ralspur (GG). 2. The Additiongl Collector, . Bilaspur, Tehsil ana District Bilaspur (CG) • 3. The sub Bi1s'isional Officer (Revenue) Lorral, District Bllaspur (co), 4. Girahari S/o Baderwa, Sarpanch» Orgrn Panchayat PiparKhuti, resiaei-t of village Hadgaon Vikas Koand T.6rm1.» District Bllaspur . ^ 5. / Sni'v Rmar Ehruv S/o Bahoran Singh Ohruv residen't o? village Eiparkhul;!, Vikas Khana Lor'"1 ^ Dlstric-t Bilaspur (cs) . y /'-^ ^4^ / -^ESBDi'IOEin'S WBIT PETITION UNSER ARTICLES 226/1'227 01? THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA XI-HC-22 :3I^IW : R-ll* 311^1 ^•ff^'SllgtT ^ r i i|! II !S u> M '3wF 'tll41ct*l, »'n1tt<l6, (StjtKiy Sff^f "q^ .u3:±..(v3.&:aA33^'LIS03 "Wl. 200 •:^' wwiwwai fere^r' %NWHW#t 26-08-2003 Hecsrd Shri P.S.Chandelcoun^ BythisWri+Pe+ition^iled Indio the.petlfioner seeks to challei passed by rhe 'Additional Collec+oi-j M'hich +hs appliea+ion of ths pstiti sreferred by fespondent No.4, t?| aoainst the order of ('esponcfent No.^ dated 23.4.20Q1. the rsspondent Nd responden't' No.5 and .set-aside his'J iaehiv. In the petltion it had i "•• " • . '.'" • ' ' ..;- - ' •• •—:•.: •••: impugnea order (Annexure P-1) by:, rajected, b& quashed and the petiti the respondent as necessary party o| unyer nfie litnsr *wid41-i "wraf ii'ft^t <I«t{i< iT3lf5OT3fl^ el for the-petitioner. Artieles 226/227 of the Constitution of the order dated 29.4.2003 (Anhexur-e P-l) ii.iaspur in Case No. 26/Sa-l44/'OQ-01 by. for adding him as porty in the appsal e Sarpanch ofj6rs2rn Panchayat Pipapkhuti; passed on 23.4,2001, wasr'ejected. 6y order i.3,. the 5.&.0 Lormi, a!!owed.the appeal af 'emovQl fr'om the Post of PanchayQt Karmi, prayed that by alfowing the pe't'i+ion the |which the application of the petitioner wos mefbe allowed to be^added in the apray of ||j| id toheaf theappeal afresh. . , ; '^' w fj [.:,% IJB i.MS or the peTltioner. a3 I have hedrd learned counsel Counsel for tne, petitioner sufcjmitted thot respondent No.5 was worfcing ca! PQnchayat Karmi Sachlv o'fSr'am Pari^hoiyot Piparkhu+i and as he waa remQved'frdi'n the Pos* of Pancha^ct Kormi Sac!1 oppiicQtions-fOr'.the^sjiid.post.AccoBj persons (ypiied foC.'i-gis post vide anjiexure a liv, s notiflcatiort was issued IhtiyitingjtheH Bngiy, the r'espondenllNo.Satoriglwithiofh^f P-2 and therec[ffsr vids r'e^olu't'iorioflEI J_ :): \'fss !ss '•ll'i'^ l^ "•'[ l: anliexure m 11 's-HE-as 'TSf -(j^|fj<(, ®Tttwi6,RlCTWy 3f^[ TR^ .fc3.:£:JCOO:Al;Q^-eo3 "fft 2W 'a •3^11 tH«<nt<t>»tt<»> fc|'b<{iil" <Hl^l^f R;Tfi?t* ^tt^ ttE^tf Sfi^fRt ^ . OHC^ff ^WSl 1yfet *~~ 2^-< ^nnexure P-3 the petitioner was aApoint^ wcancy accrued by the removQl ofresp4 the meantiffle, respondent No.5 fiied an ^ •ormi agoinat ths order of h'ls removal an|j 1-he remova! order passed against responf which the petitioner was not a party. Aqai| Fhe 5t)0, Lormi, respondent. No.4 hereln| Lloiit'ever, the appeal fiied by respondenl Filecf by re.spondent No.4 was wi+hdrawrj ietitioner moved on application befdre fiecessary party because his interest was| It is not disputed that prior t^ woi-king as Panchayat Kar-mi, Sachiv and -tj the vocancy accrued by the removal of re| I'hat order the respondent No.5 filsd a'( 5&0, Lormi set-oside that orde," In apj iggrieved by the orderf dated 23.4.2( "edponden+ No.4 filed on appeal befor'^ ^ilector, Bitaspur and u!fimateiy the s<!|J 24.2.2003 ae respondent K)o,4 moved dn cll »(>wf<'t<il"lft'K'iF'ifft^tRitSK ^aiFriHSfi^n ;d as Pacichayat Karmi Sachiv against the ndent No.5 namely Shlvkumar Dhruv. In ppeal before +he Sub !bivisionai Officer, aubssqucntly th^ S&p Lorrni set-aside jent No.5 vide orde" dcsted 23.4.2CX31 in ist +he order do+ed 23.4.2001 passed by flled an appeal before respondent No.2. • No.4 was Uiithdrawn: Since the appeal in collusion with rsspondent No.5, the 1-he Additiona! Colleetor to add hsm as ^crffected. the petitioner, respondent No.5 was he petitioner was appojnted only.againat spondent No.5 by the panchaycit. Agcmst appeaibefore the SDO Lormi and the leal vide order doted 23.4.2001. Being X)l pasfied by the S&O, Lormi, the the respondent No.2 the Additional d appeal, wos dismissed as wltbdrawn on ppiication to this effect. fs -^•11 B'B5tBt»SB::®S^3SK K8BiiSB!hMB. aC::g -«S' Bi K H:!i ;-®' i|||^!;|l»-B^2%J 3iI^ff^>I ft-fifb^St w^^ y;» gg^?e'w<i!si»j,"s>at^-lis; •:^a .-^'yi^ ^T^T 'q^W -'s- .^^.^..l^.^^St..3^^ __ '^ffEIW^H^ * " ' 'S^ 200 ^S ^??' sn^a' ?<;fl)<a< ^fen In.my opinion, the petiti&ner- g accrued by the femovat of responden^ hod filed an appeol also ond therefora any way. Indirectly, the petitiorier's i( of respondent No.5 was aliowed th^n| jeoparady. But that does not 9ive th^ matter in which the issue involved w| No.5 by the Panehayat. That was respondent No.5 and therefore, in a| nscessary party in that appeal and -^ rejected by respondent No.2 by orde] subsKince Thus. I dp not.finc^'ony liable to be dismissed; It is aceor'dihg <*l«fa^)-<ii'Kil^ fe^ <f»it<tl^ ^ Slf^w '<fll^w st the appointment only against the vacancy No.S and against tchieh the respondent No.5 , ths pstitionep was not a nscsssary partyin iterest might be there because if the appeal the appointment of the pe+i+ioner niay be'un petltioner'any right tobecpme party.in the is r'egarding the removol of the respondent » disputs between the Panchwat snd the ly way the petitionercan not be termed as he application QT the petitioner waS r'i9h'tly • dated 29.4.2003. H i^the instant petltlon and the sarne;is 1 disniissed. Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo judge tM Iffll 9 sia ua