c IN^THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P. No.^^of2002 GANESH RAM SAHU SON OF SHM GENDRAM SAHU AGED 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF GRAM KIRITPUR TAHSIL BERALA DISTMCT DURG PETITIONE<"^ VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PANCHAYAT AND SOCIAL WELFARE, DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN, RAIPUR 2. THE UPPER COLLEGTOR, BEMETARA ,DURG 3. THE STATE OF MP THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PANCHAYAT AND SOCIAL WELFARE, VALLABH BHAWAN,BHOPAL T- 4. PAWAN KUMAR CHAUHAI^; SON OF SHRI BHAGELA CHAUHAN AGED ABOUT 30 t^» YEARS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ^/ ^KIMTPUR TEHSIL BERALA A^ DISTRICT DURG %^ c."- ,^..-- tSf- RESPONDENR WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDA]VIUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR ORDERfS). AND/OR DIRECTIONfS) IN THE NATURE QFWRITS The humble petition ofthe Petitioner above named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH /^- IMi ii>:s :B!S.t5,Ste;f' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS©ARH: HLASPUR Djvisipn Bench Coram : Hon'ble Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ & Hon'ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava,~>l WRIT PETITION N0.2309/2fl02 Qanesh Ram Sahu Versus :SPOJ<DENT StateofChhattisgarti&Others Present: - Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel forthe patitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Addl. Advocate General for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 26th February, The tollowing oral order of the Court was passed tsy H.L. Dattu, C.J. Petitioner, a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kirttpur, Durg, is before us in this writ peUtion filed under Arfele 226 of ConstituUon of india, inter alia, questioning the constitutional of Section 36 (1) (m) of the MP/CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyanr unconstitutional, void, non est and not sustainable in taw. 2) The consequential reliefs sought in this writ petitton are : a) To quash fte show cause nofce No. 489/Pra.Uppei as Coltector/2003 dated 24/02Q005 issi»d by the Additional Collector and; Consequent acBon of removing the petifloner frem the post of Up-Sarpanch by the Upper Cotlector, Bemetra :^;:i:":";?sg8?' fc^& :-..•:• is beyond his competence and also iliegal and not sustainable in iaw: c) Lastly, to dectare that the petitioner is enUtied to work as Up-Sarpanch for the said area for the reraaining period. 3) In so far as ttie first prayer sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is concemed, the same is no more res integra in vwu of the taw declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case crf Javed and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in 4) in view of the above, the request of the peUtioner to declare that the SecUon 36 (1)(m) of the MP/CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam as unconsUtutional cannot be granted by us. Accordingly, th®sakl prayer is rejected. 5) Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the p^ftioner, after arguing the matter for quite some tima in support of the second relief sought for in tfiis writ petition, requeste us to permit him to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition questioning the show cause noticed dated 24/02ff005 and the consequential order passed by the Additional Coilector. 6) The request of learned counsei fw ths peBtioner is not seriously opposed by Shri Prashant Mishra, teamed Addl. Advoeate Generat for the State. Therefore, the following: Order 1. The first prayer sought for by the petidoner in this writ petition is rejected in view of the !srw dectared 7) by Hon'ble the Apex Court fn the case of Javed (supra). 2. In so far as second prayer Is concerned, the petitioner is at tiberty to question the same before the learned single Judge, (f he so desires, by films a fresh writ petitfon. 3. All the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- ChiefJustice ~~Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge 7;1-.'.t - ^ r< ^'^^^^<^&^^—A t^