IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.l WRIT PETITION NOA~^ /2006 n.Mftl F BEll! PETITIONER ,^' ^^- v%<€// A-' • €^ 'y Lakhan Lal S/o Shri Dhanau Ram Maravi Aged about 35 years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kanjheta Tehsil Panderiya R/o Village Kanghata Post Kotegaon, Tehsil Panderiya Dist. Kawardha Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS ,y •s^' ....„„-s"'?> ^x ^,ni>\^ /"S~A/ v'^rss^^ %,'!'''^sv~^y ~^S.»,.:J--": "*~'Stht^BE-1- ^r 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector District Kawardha Chhattisgarh 3. Sub-Divisional Officer •f Tehsil Panderiya Dist. Kawardha Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pandariya Tehsil Pandariya Dist. Kawardha Chhattisgarh 5. Secretary Janpad Panchayat Pandariya Tehsil Pandariya Dist. Kawardha Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITJUIJHE N^TUREOF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS ^'^^f-^a^^^y-L;^ XI-HC-22 sni^Tqi? Wi?n sf^v ^^ii^^rfi^T 'ir:- 7°t7^rai?pT,'3^ms,'f^ u.f. ^. ir'^3 "•^ 2»n& sn^i TCHW "gftti Sliri Sa-rijay Kumar Shri Aldul Agrawal, Heard on admission M.fW).P. No. 1374/2006. Leamed counsel foi members of tiie Grain Pani wifh tiie statutory directiou] flush. tetriae. Petitioner respondeut No.2 on 14/02J, fhe aforesaid statutory dire{ Therefore, all the nieinbers hands and in order to takel no coDfidence niotion. confidence niotion, PresidiGfe to speak. Per contna, lear4' proceediags of the prescrib| law aad law itself permits take part in fhe proceedm.g From bare readuig ofl Raj Adhiniyam., 1993, it sarpaach as fhe case may| othenrise to take part ia, th|c :^f<<I<vt^lri 'Hifldi "^ S^%1 if^^r-c ^sriigiTaiI^f Agjawal, counsel for petitioner. Lawyer for respondents. 4nd on M.(W].P. No. 1218/2006 and petitioner contended that seven j;ltayat, Kafijheta, have aot complied jwhich requircs construction of pour |ieiag Sarpanch aiade a report to j/2006 regaidmg non-compliance of ^•tion by members of the Panchayat. |of the F^nchayat have joined their t^venge arc interested .ia s'uccess of He further contended that in no OfEcer vrill not aUciw ffae petitioner [ed Psaael Lawyer contended that the ^d aufhorily are m. accordance with petitioner to speak or ofherwise to >fthe nieeting. Section 2l(2) offhe C.Q. Panchayat is cvident that; "Saipanch or Up- be shaU have right to speak at, or pioceeding offhe ineeting". tbc !^firt -Tff7 'E'1- XI-HC-22 Sl^T'qH R-li'* SD^I 9t^Hich ^iTia T- kvr .^ '.^ 'r ^;Sf?iraRP(; -»Ti1<d'II»,-I«|l?ll'Hlj,< w.^. N^>. ,(r<ii^ 111CTI StlXlch M 200 ^ 311^1 ^RHWHfet qitAfl^<i1T1 ^l'H^ ^ WC3t •ti^K-SK ^ 3if;aiT,3ii^ff From. the avermeat m^de iu the petittion aad contention raised by the petitioncr durin^: argument, fhere appears nofhing, which inay caU for any interfeji-cnce at fhis juncture by this Court. Therefore, fhe petition is liabl^ to be dismissed summarily and is accordingly dfemissed. M(W}P No. 1218/2006, No. 3357^2006 stand dispose^ of. M.(W).P.No. 1374/2006 andI.A. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge [^^fwr .=-:^-1