HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGAKH AT BIIASPUR SLB. : HON'BLEMR.SATISHK.AGNIHOTRI.J. WMT PETTTION fCl N®.1277 of28(>?. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt Digeshwari Dewangan w/o Shri Aivez Dewangan aged about 30 yeara, R/o Trimurtinag»Ward No. 5, Bwga on, couacilor Dr. Khoobehand Ba^iel ward No. 5 Muncipal Couneil, Birgaon Tehsil asd District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chfaattisgaih, tfafoi^i Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Bitgaon, Tdisil Dharsiva, DistrictRaipur (C.O.). 2. Collector, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Om Prakash Dewangffli S/o Shri Kaahaiya Lal Dewau^a, aged about 37 years, President Nagar Palika Parishad, Birgaoa, Usliict Raipur(C.G.) t^-' Present: Shri Manish Upadhyay, Advocate for Ifae petitioner. Shri Uticarsh Verma, I^?uty Govenuneat Advoeate for tfae State/respondsnts 1 aad 2. Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for respondeat ao.3. ORDER (Passed on I2m ofMarch, 2007) 1. The petitioner challenges the legality aad validity of oider dsted 22.01.2007 (AflBexure P/5) passed by the Cdlector, Rswpw in Paaehayst Case No. 26/8-121/Year 2005-06 whereuHder die ^: petitioner has been deelafri as disqu^ified wider provisioBS of Section 38(lXc)of The Chfaattisgarh Municipaiities Act, 1961, (hefeinafter referred to as "Aet, 19$1") from tiie oflBee ofCouaeitor ofWardNo. 5. 2. The iadisputable facts ia autsheH are that the petiti«Hierwas etected as Couneflor from ward no. 5 of Muaicipsl Couacil, BffgBoa, District Raipur as an indepeadeat eandidate in the electioa held ia December 2004. It was hroa^it to flie notice of the C<»Ueetor wde report dated 9.3.2006 tfaat ttie petitioner as Councilor did not atteod the couacil meetiag fi-om 31.3.2005 to 10.11.20Q5 without l^ve of the Cound]. Thus, abstention dariag six coasecative moaths fl'oai fhe meetings oftiie council eatails disqualification under pCT'naioas of section 38 ofAcl, 1961. Pureuant to that, show cause Botic®dated 26.4.2006 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner subsritted her reply on 25.092006 (Ami^ure P/3). The Collector, after having afforded proper opportuaity of hearing to the petitioBet, the Cfatef Municipal OflScer and after hftving eifflmiasd the nrinutes of the impugned order. The petitioner has not afleged aay malafid®to tbe effect that tiie petitioner had partieipated but her nwne w®s recorded in the proceedings ia faer reply deliberately. After licaring the petitioner and after exataining the Repsters ofthe proceedings, the Colleetor came to the eonelusiofl that it has been found proved that the petitioner absented herself during six conseeutive nioaths i:lf5 ¥-- from the meetiags of tihe Coaaetl without leave of Ae Coaacil as stated above. Accordingly, while exeieising Ms power uad^-swtion 38(I)(c) ofthe Aet, 1961, tiie petitioner was deeland as d w.e,f the date ofthe order. The leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioaer subaats ftat tf»e petitioner has obtained docuaents at AaBexure P/l tader tiie provisions ofRight to Infermatiofi Aot. It was fer&CT cogteBded Art tfae proceedings as obtained did not i?ear sigaatare ofthe cCT^wtent autfaority i.e, the Chief Muaicipal Offieer. It appeais 1hat the petitioner has beea su^ti^t with wly cae pag®oflhe pocwdiag not the eatirecopy ofthe proceedtngs. Shri Pratoek Shanna, leamed couase! atq)ea ing f<w r^pond<at no. 3 sabmite that Aere is ao iwtsos aot to record tiie ofA® petitioner in the proeeedings aad it is aiso aot the ease of ihe petitioner that the petitioaar's naiae has sot beea reetffded deliberately ia tiie proceedings. Learned coiinsel fBrther SBhmite tiiat all Ae proceedings duly auftenticated by fte eturf Miaieipid OfBeer have been produced before tbe Collwtor aad tto Geifoct&r has passed Ihe order after exaariBJng the documeBts, Shri Utkarsh Veraia, Depuly Gownunest Atlvoeate for the respondent no. 1 and 2 adopts the salsnission made t^ the l^raed couasel appearing for respondent no. 3 and furtfier mbimte that ia ordCTtoiavokejurisdictioa u/s. 38 oflfaeAct 1961, i»oofofabs<ace M ': for six consecutive aoaths is eaough. No JEuriAer egq»Iaaatioa is required for declaration. 6. I have heard learned eouasel for the parties aad perused tiie pleadiags and docuaeats spperded Ifaereto. It appea®tfaat the unpugBed order wss passed slftCT exaaiaing dl the fwts and circumstaBces of the case. The CoBector has goae tbreu^ tit® proceedings and has heard Ae petitioner befere pasring the oider. I do not find aay mfinnity, illegalily or jurisdictioBal error ia tbe impugned order. Thusi, it does not caU for any iaterferwoe by tiiis Court. 7, This petition is accordingly dismissed. No erder as to eoste. 8. Cosseqnen^y, M(W)P No. 826/2007, applicatton fm- ii stands disposed of. wtwS, ¥=- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotti Judge Ainit S^