'^^ I '~-aagi 1 1. ^""1SJ '^[-^^•y ^ '%..v"""'^ v^.r~,: -,.^^5r' ^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Satlsh K. Agnihotri WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 2043 OF 2007 Petitioner Inder Sai, Son of Shri Faula Ram, aged about 40 yeare, Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Khairbar, Japand Panchayat Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). Responctents Vereus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Sub Divisional OfRcer (Revenue) (Prescribed Authority) Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pancha^it, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). 4. The Retuming Offlcer, Block Educatfon OfRcer, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). 5, The Panchayat and Social Education Organisor, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG). 6. Dharam Sai, Son of Shri Heera Sai. 7. Mohan Kerketta, Son of Shri Manglu. 8. Amos Lakda, Son of Shri Vinod Lakda. 9. Rajind, Son of Shri Munjoa Uraon. 10. Ramdayal, Son of Not Known. 11. Kiloman Toppo, Son of Not Known. 12. Rajkumar Minj, Son of Shri h4ahadev. The respondents hto.6 to 12 are residents of village Khairbar, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). Present:- Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on 4th April. 2007) By this petition filed under Arfcle 226/227 af the Constitution of India, the pet'rtioner impugns the validity and tegality of the order dated 5-3-2007 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional OfRcer, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, in case No.46/A-89/2004-05. 2) The petittoner was elected on the post of Sarpanch of village panchayat Khairbar, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District Sarguja in the election hetd on 23-1-2005. The respondent No.6 was also one of the candidates in the election on the post of Sarpanch. 3) The respondent No.6 being aggrieved, filed an elecUon petition under the provisions of Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Sub Dhrisional ofRcer, Ambikapur, Distriet Sarguja (CG), on the ground that the petitioner was disqualified to contest tt»e etecUon of Sarpanch as in his preceding term as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khairbar, the petitioner has taken advance from the Gram Panchayat Tor executing several works. The balance of Rs.40,OCX)/- was still payabte and on account of the non-payment of Vhe balance amount of Rs.40,OX)/- before election date i.e. 23-1-2005, the petitioner was disqualified to contest the election of Sarpanch. fiSter hearing all the parties, the Sub Dwisional Officer hetel that the petitioner was still having a 1 dues of Rs.40,000/- payabte to Panchayat and made a wrong declaration jn the fbrm that there was no dues pending against him. On that ground vide impugned order dated 5-3-2007 passed in appeal revenue case No.46/A-89/2004-05 (Annexure-P/1), the election of the petitloner on the post of Sarpanch was declared as void and he was removed from the post ofSarpanch. 4) Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this pefition impugning the order dated 5-3-2007 and submits that he has deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 4-4-2005, thus, the petitioner was not disqualifled. When the impugned order was passed, admittedly the petiUoner had pending dues of Rs.40,00)/- on or before the date of election i.e. 23-1-2005, which attracts disqualification under ttie provislons of Chhaltisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The petitioner after having accepted the dues, deposited the amount on 4-4-2005 and challenges the hnpugned order on the ground that no proper enquiry was held before declaring the petitioner as disqualified in the election appeal. 5) I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is an admitted case of pending dues of Rs.40,000/- before e date of etection i.e. 23-1-2005. Therefore, issue of notice to hold enquiry vrould be an empty formality. 6) In the case of Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "22. The principle of natural Justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. [See Gugeewan GarewalfDr.) v. Dr. Swnitra Dash]. The principles of natural 1 (2005) 5 SCC 337 justice are required to be complied wtth having regard to the fact situdion oUaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant ftrcte and circumstances of the case. [See Stete of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh and Karanfaka SRTC vs. S.G. Kbte/raippa]." 7) In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is unexceptionabte and needs no interference. Accordingly, the petition is liable to dismissetl and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge