W IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAspmz WRIT PETITION (CLNO. ‘59 62 /2011 PETITIONERS 1. e Ashok Kumar Sahu, son of Shri Vishnu Sahu, aged abouf 45 years, surpanch, Gram Panchaym‘ Jawaibandho, Developmenf Biock Abhanpur, DisTricT Raipur (6(5) .Harshvardhan Tarak, son of Shri PaTiram Tarak, aged V abou’r 2.5; years, Rozgar Sahayak, Gram Panchaya‘r Jawaibandha, Development Block Abhanpurl Disfric’r Raipur (CG) . STaTe of ChhaTTisgarh, Through The SecreTary, Departmem‘ of PanchayaT and Rural DeveIopmenT, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manfralaya, Raipur. .The CollecTor~cum- DisTricT Program Coordinafor, Mahafma Gandhi Nah’onal Rural Employmen? Guaram‘ee Raipur. .The Sub Divisional Officer, Aarang, Abhanpur (CG) Janpad Panchayaf Abhanpur, Through its Chief ExecuTive ’wéavg" 3g? $3‘9w” ¢ / (‘ns y Vs REsPONDENTs / / “55W .Sam) Officer. /' 5. Lokpal, an independen‘r enquiry agency under The MahaTma Gandhi Nafional Rum! EmploymenT Guaran’ree Act, 2005, Lokpal office, Raipur. r6.The Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employmenf Guaranfee, Commissioner Office, Raipur u WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA #i gag HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No‘ 5968 of2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Dinesh RIKATiwari, Advocate f‘nr the petitioner. Shn' Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the Slate/respondent No. 1 to 3. Present: O R D E R (Passed on 30di day of September, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 05.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Lokpal, Mahatma Gandm National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Raipur, whereby'the Lokpal has recommended to take action against the petitioner on the allegations being found proved, and the notice dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure P/3) issued by the Sub Divisional Otiicer, Aarang, Abhanpur, whereby the petitioner was asked to submit his response on 23.09.20] 1. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jawaibandha, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur, and the petitioner No. 2 is the Rojgar Sahayak. One Purushottam Sahu, lodged a. written complaint. before the Lokpal alleging that the petitioners have committed certain irregularities in the construction work carried out. at Dharsa and in digging work of the pond situated in village Jawaibandha It was also alleged that. the petitioners have misappropriated the fund by making false and fake entries in the muster roll. On his complaint, a case being No. 2/201 was registered . The petitioners were summoned by the Lokpal and the petitioners filed their written reply denying the allegations. The Lokpal. without considering the reply ofthe petitioners; has passed the impugned award dated 05.07.2011 aher relying on the documents available and the evidence adduced by the witnesses. Shri Tiwari fiirther submits that afier passing of the impugied PETITIONER : Ashok Kumar Sahu & Another. VER SI }S RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. Q)? award, the respondent No. 3 has issued a. notice to explain asto why a. proceeding under section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that this petition is premature as no cause of action has arisen in the instant case. The petitioner has been issued with a show cause notice to which he has not replied till date. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Lokpal which has only recommended to take appropriate action against. the petitioner but till date, no such order imposing any punishment or penalty has been passed. The respondent No. 3 has also issued a. notice on 02.09.2011 (Annexure P/3) to enable the petitioners to submit their response. The petitioners, without replying to the said notice, have rushed to this Court seeking quashing of the award passed by the respondent No. 5, as well as the notice issued by the respondent No. 3. This petition is premature at this stage as no order has been passed against. the petitioners till date. There is no challenge to any order which creates cause of action. Thus, I do not. find any merit in the instant petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed being premature. x/JM.M. b) Aw