'fr^'sdi ^;* ,^ - ^t^Kl-r1'"— sii^rw R-ilcb '^t 3TI^ gb^iqt ^3 3^ '<<l<lld<4, »flly'l(o, fs|<rliy^< ,...-^.^..^5M--••••••••••• n^i TPR? (ycil'l°<'lti) APPEL^NT: (Petitioner) RESPONDENTS: Division Bench: Hon. Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon.Shri R. sM<<i<^*Tl'1 's^T^ff ^* 'fe1E3t ^^R ^aifTOsn^i Ravi Shanker Chouhan, S.'o Shri Mitthu Lal Chouhan, aged about 43 years, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Purgaon, R/o Viliage Purgaon, Tahsi! Silaigarh, Disfrict Raipur (CG) rVersus- o. of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat Socia! Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Ssvak Ram, S/o Bahau Ram Sahu, 50 vears. R/o Viliaae Purgaon, Tahsi! Bi'aigarh, District Raipur (CG) Laxmi Prasad, S/o Tirath Ram Sahu, 50 years, R/o Viilage Purgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) Panchram, S/o Udey Ram Sahu, 40 years, R/o yiliage Purgaon, Tahsii Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) Sub Divisionat Officer, Revenue, Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) , Chief Executive Officer, Panchayat, Bilaigarh, District Raipur Director Panchayat, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) ^iaB"-; .1^. ^ p^ 1 .-f v '>,t(JFX»HC—78 31^1 W K;-(i«h TOI 311^1 »ii'» ^ ~?ST '<<l<lld'4, ®T)ly<|(o,fsidl'yy,-!. "^200 •STit^I 'V^! (iyij«<^q) ^- Pancllaya Shri N.K. Chatierjee, counsel S'nri Vinay Harit, Deputy La^vyer for the State. Heard. The appe'lant is an eiected him under Section 40 of the Pan irregularifies of the Grarn cpmplaint without proper enquiry 'ound proved. One ofthe compiain fliing appea! before the Additional Collector ailowed the appea! and ss matter to the SDO to decide the the case by affording an opporiunit was further dismissed by the Diret aDoellant herein has been further-di; Advbcate arn4d "S. l have heard Is; parties, perused the aDDended thereto. i do nc| taken by the Additional conciusion that the order Officer without exsmining an opportunity of hsaringl oraer impugned nerein 2007 passed by the Additi^ does not warrant. interferenl After hearing iearned counsf the pleadings in ths writ petltion ar|d l=nWi<?l<^l ^w^f tf 'fs^t TF*1-^1< ^SiRlH 311^1 for the appellant. General Vi'ith Shri S.K. lishra, Panei jarpanch. A complaint was lodged against jshayat Raj Adhiniyam regarding financia! jayat fund. The S.D.0. dismissed the a flnding that the allegation was not ^nts impugned the order of SDO by way of ICollector, Baloda Bazar. The Additionai fct aside the order of SDO and remitied the tiptaint afresh after examining the merits of y of hearina to all concerned. The revision Panchayat. Tha writ petition filed by the smissed with fo!!owing observations:- coiOp ctbr counssi aDpsannj i^adings and the documents find any error in the approach ICollector and coming to the w^s passed by the Sub Divisionai the merits and without affordini to the concemed parties, the alfirming the order dated 24-10- iti^nal Co'ilector is just, proper and ;e bythisCourt." 1 for the appeilant and after going through the documents appended therein, v/e are £' XI-HC—78 ^^ '^i^K'i4!, 6?Tilyi<o, fs|diy^< •^200 ^? TR^ (Tpt:wtl) sn^; v. h-u* ^SH S?T^?T ^i*iicft Sarve of the opinion that the order passed infirmity or illegallty. The appeal being without any is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^pifopih 'RR^ff ^ fe1E3t <^T<-$[< ^atRnstr^r by the learned Single Judge suffers vyith no substance deser/es to be dismissed and it Sd/- -i R.N. Chandrakar; Judge