IN THE HON/BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATf'ISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.y WRIT PETITION fC.yNO. ^6?3QF 2010 RESPONDENTS : PETITIONER : Sitaram Nishad, S/o Prabhuram Nishad, aged about 60 years, R/o Azad Chowk, Ward No. 4, Village Panchayat Parpodi, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G. VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattjsgarh, Through: the Secretary, Town Administration and Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Town Administration and Development Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4; Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Parpodi, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .w/ ^'^y G&^y r^^^^' Ais'L ^ ^/ , <?w ^ L— iXI-HC-22 ^ <^ ^ -^^ ^WM^ ^w^. ^w^y. ^Tt?T XR^ J::Q±^S^D HW^{ 5b^l<=b •fe^y' w^r'cFr f<-li<=h 377^1 5t)*iich ^f^a 37T^?T ^<TTW ^f^a SB : Hon'bleShri Manindra Mohan Shri vastava, J. 27-04-2011 Shri P. P. Sahu, counsel forthe pe^ Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawy to 3 on advance copy. Heacd on admission. litioner. jer for the State/respondents No. 1 The petitioner, who is the electecf Parpodi, District Durg has filed this petj conduct enquiry in view of the seric|us irregularities pointed out by the Auditor in councilor of Nagar Panchayat, tion for issuance of direction to findings and administrative |iis audit report (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitione| audit report was submitted long back irji several representations made, no actij respondent persons on the basis of th| though vide memo dated 07-10-2006 (Anjiexure Urban Administration and Development, Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Parp|3di audit report , but the Chief Municipal Offi|;er, not taking any steps and vide communic^t' P-7), the petitioner has been informed report could not be sent. Learned counsel for the State su^mitted report, appropriate proceedings shall be ts <=M^(<n<fl<i 'RP^if"? fiT^ <F3i^i< ^ 3^m^:n^T submits that even though, the the year 2006 and in spite of \>n is being taken against the audit report. He submits that P-8), the Deputy Director, ^aipur Division directed the Chief li to submit report in view of the fi{;er, Nagar Panchayat, Parpodi is |tion dated 09-07-2010 (Annexure that due to shortage of staff, the that in view of the audit ken in the matter. [Tft^ SR^^. 'ss ^^ISsi^ .JXI-HC-22 i^ i7 .4y' 'S^Ssfr^- ^ssy -^5E[ ^L||<l||€r|<L|, ^ill^^Ko. ^<ni^^< s'n^r xra^ _W.;!..feJ..^:.E6.t^o 'WR^ITWWg? ^* <*'****w' /^T^ 200 f^^T' W^T-^T '^ri^sn^r 5h^iicn <if^a Tumane -?- 3'TT^T ^Rff^R'^•H Taking into consideration the subi for the parties, in my opinion, it would b No.2 to look into the matter and draw ap^ of the audit report. As the matter has for the lastfive years, the Director should in the matfer expeditiously without undue With the aforesaid observation, the CM^(<n<fl11 'WT^Tt*^ fec2t if^l^K ^3Tf^R3TI^T i|nission made by learned counsel ^ proper to direct the respondent ^ropriate proceedings on the basis ren|iained pending without any action do well to take appropriate action |delay. petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Jude [TTt^ ^.R^^