B HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BljLASPUR W. P.JNo. 2118/2005 PETITIONBR RESPONDENTS Shyara Lal s/o Bhaiyalal, aged about 38 years, Caste Harijaa (SC), r/o viHage Tendua, Tahsil Baikunfhpur, Distt.Koria (C.G). Vefsus — 1. State of Chhatdsgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat Departnieiit, D.K.S. Bhawan, Maatraiaya, Raipur (C.G). 2. CoUector,Distt. Koria(C.G). 3. Sub-Divisipnal Officer (Revenue) Baialnuitpur, Distt. Koria (C.G). 4. Chief Executive Officer, iJanpad Panchayat, Baiiikunthpur, Distt. Kona(C.G). 5. Sarpaach, Gram Pauchayat Tendua; Tah.sil BauiKunfhpur, Distt. Koria(C.G) 6. Gauesh Prasad Rajwade, r/o viilage Tendua, Tahsil Bafaikuiithpur, Distt. Koria (C.G) WRIT PEITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE eONSTlTUTIONOFINDIA Appearaace: Shri D.N. Prajapati, coiuisel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer, for fhe State/ Responderits no. t to3. Nonefor respondentNo.4. Shn B.L.Dembra, counsel for responderit no.5. Snit. Renu Kochar eounsel for reSpondent no.6. OR&LOKDER (23.11.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J Heard. . : The petitioner is aggnevedwifh fhe orderdated 11.5.2Q05 passed by Gollector, Koria, Baikuntlipur in Appeal No|.3- B/121/2003-2004. (Armexure P-1). The said appeal was ffled again.st tfae order dated 08.6.2004 passedbytheSub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunfhpur in Revenue Case No.283^B- 121/03-04'by which the Sub-Divisional Officer, after upholding ^ s's's iSlltll -2- W.PrsyNo.2118/2005 fhe contention ofrespondent 110,6 set aside the appotatiiient 6f fhe petitioner to the post of Padchayat Karmi and directed the eoncemed Grara Panchayat to coinplete the process of appoiafnient of Panchayat Karmi wifhin a period of one inonfh as per tlie guideliues given iu Panchayat Kanni Yojna. The sub- Divisional Officer recoided his findiug on twd Goimts. Firsfly, he held that Gram Panchayat has not adopted proper procedure to pass the resolution for appointment of fhe petitioQer aiid fhe resolution so pressed into inotion was bad in law. He also set aside the appointment of fhe petitioner on the grotmd that respondent no.6 who was earUer Uoldiag fhe post of Panchayat Karmi was not given au opporfunity of heariag before fais such reinoval froia the said post, fherefore, ou fhe one hand reinoval of respondent no.6 was bad in law aiid on the ofher hand, the appoiatiuent of petitioner was also bad in law. It is on fhese grounds, the appoiutment of petitioner was canceUed aad the Gram Paachayat was directed to iaitiate the process of appoiatmeiit aad to complete fhe saiae wifhiu a period of pne •aiosQl. ^ • , . ''•" •1,.' ,' ; ' : ' '^:' '• ', Against fhis oider, ftie petitiouer filed the aforesaid appeal before fhe Collector aad on 22.6.2004, anorderofstatusquo was granted in favoiir of the petitioner. Thereafter, tKe matter was taken up for fidail tiearuig and ultimately the unpugned order dated; 11,5.2005 was passed by fhe CoUector and the appeal filed by the petitioner was disinissed coiifirmiag the order passed by-the Sub-DivisioD.al Ofl&cer. While passihg the order, the CoUector observed that durulg fhe pendeilcy of the appeal, respondent no.6 was appouited as Paachayat Kanni but he was not given charges of SecretaTy etc. as aa effeet of fhe stay order granted by fhe said aufhoiity, fherefore, fhere is no necessity for iaterterence with fhe order passed by the Sub- Divisioaal OHicer , , | A perusal ofthe brder passed by the Cpllectorwould phow fhat fhe CoHector has not assigned any reaSQn regarding upholding Qie order passed by the Sub-Diyisional Qfficer and he has suaply stated that ttiere is ho necessity of uaterferenee ^,,. .;- ! - . ! . ..:.- ' • .. .. -. :•.—...'— '1 ...,'. .1:^- ' with tlie order and tlie appeal is dismissed, Therefore, it is lclear ^Qiatihe order of GoUector has not been based on aay reasoniag :^^A^^^^;^s^@%^^^^^^%4i^E -3" W.P^No.2118/2005 scDd a siniple approval of the order passed by the S.D.O. has been done by him. Itis abasic prmciple that an brdermust be supported by fhe reasonings and ifthe orderis unreasoned the same caluiot be sustained in fhe eyes oflaw. Reasons are alive luiks tietween the miad of the decision taker to fhe controversy iu question and the decision. or conclusion amved at. T'ailure to give reasons aaiounts to denial of justice fplease see Alexander IBachineni Dudley Ltd: Vs. Crabtree 11974LCR 120) reference ewetilable in ASt 2003 SC 1462 at oaae 1467. Inview ofthe above, when the order of Collectorhas been passedwifhoutassigniaganyreason, I deeia it appropriate to set aside fhe order and remit fhe miatter back to the CoUector for rewritmg the order after giviag a fresh opportunity ofMearuig to both the pardes. Accordiagly, fhe petition succeeds. The iinpugned order dated 11.5,2005 passed by tfae Collector in case of3-B/l21/ 20Q3-2004 is quashed. The matter is remarided to fhe coUector for passiag a fresli reasoned qrder after giving opportunily of /'•'- hearing to all fhe parties afi-esh. f'———___/ There shaU be no order as to costs. I a_ ..--""'"' Judge Rao j.! ^.;i'sft^i;?i an