7" 4 •• ^r^t- • SiNC? P Besi^EB IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT B'LASPUR CHHAn'SGARH PETITIONER W.P.fS'NO. ($5'<37 ,/200A C^QriQQ prQcQc'i DhntlQhar©»Aosd 50 v©ars/ 5/0, KooQorchanc^ DhritiQhars, SQfoorsch. CrQm PQnchavat* JhQra^ VikaskhQFid, Tahsil & District MahasQmund fChhattisacirh) V! iRSUS RESPONDENTS ,.•' ^r..-''l , ^wc- ^-y •^ .4 ^^ e/!1 ^ Sfate ofChhattisgarh, Throuah; Socr©tory, PcinchoyQt 8c Socia! Wolfc!r© DsDCTf'rrt©nt, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur, [Chhattisgarhj y . ^'''..A^ ^•••"' ^•'"^p"^' •?^ ..^--' 2] r'>Oi!@(-^^Qr ^QhQgQfYiijrt/j D'strict MohQSCimund (Chhc'tt'SQQrhl Sub Divisional Officer 8s Sosc'fiscJ Officer, Mahasamund, D'strict Mahasamund (C.G.) C^hi©f Exscutive Officer- jQHDad PanchQyot^ M.ahasamund fC.C. Nayab Tahsildar, Bagbahara, as Prssicifna Officor.. .Mahasamu"d. District MiCihasarrsund (C.C.) IWDiT P!:T!T!<^K! !!MrMC!B A DTI/^1 C l*?? /^S: TUC /^/MLI^TIT! !T!/>hJ OF !K!r^|A HBlili r£:igS S^flTi ui'iSd'CR ^^siJj^LC &,&s \sSV inc ^.^^g^ig s S S V 1 i%^i^ \js^ iya^^s^ v XI-HC-78 HI*RTF»*fr<h 3^ •<ii<iici<<, ®TD*f'i$;RKrti«y ^^^•^o~lf^ooL •""••W^ 200 Svi^ti <ia«n('^3g^8r) sn^T ^T R.fi'ib (W 311^1 *li+ BWIW (ifer sn^T 24-11- ll>f Vlvi v'ai&tiavUQvarcilian, AAvCt Klm Ai'un Kao. uo'v.-t. Acn.'ocatel Ueara on aclrmssion. ine petttioner by tius petition Jias questionect Uie legalit;/ ancl 'coi-j Annexure p-s passed by me couectorj Dy ttie petitioner under Keetion 21(4) order of Sub Divisionai Olficei'. Mah£|' been dismissed anc! resolution 6fn& contirmecl. • • unsvance ot tlie pelitioner is | tollowmg srounds betore tlie CQUeeto) me arouncls raised by tlie petition^r contra^.'eniion ot pi'ovisions ot Fanc|i tbereunder:- . l. llie mandatoiy proyisions (Ui'am Fanctiayat K.e yafflai .lattia Zlla rancnayat Ke AVishwas rtastav) Niyam, Rules of 1994) of dispatclt belore / aays ot tfte me^ resoiution tliere is no arrectea; . • ' li. Ifte petitioner wss not tlie atiove meetmg ancl tiiu| Rule 5 otthe Rules of 19941 <hi<<Ici<fl-f Hi*f<iTfftecA<Rtt<i< ^isiRliTsniCT : cate tor tlie petitioner. tor Uie Ktate. linder Ai'tlde '-£2.1 ot me Constltution ot Inaia t-ectness ot tlie order aatea J:/-1U-2UU6 ot Manasamuncl wftereby ttie revision preten-ea (J.U. FanciiayatKaj Acllumyam agamst the Isamund aated 6-y-/"U& ot .'umexure f-4 lias cotitidence caiTied out agamst ttie petitioner was It&at m tae revision tlie petitionei' aad raised t. tiowever. tfte Collector wiUlout consiaenag. lias summanly. rejectecl tiie revision m jliayat Kaj Adamiyam ancl tiie mles made |3l sub-role (3) ot Kule j ot (J.tj. Pancltayat yafflancft latlia L'p-yaipanca, Janpacl Fanctias'at IPi'esident Tatha Vice Prssident Ke Vh-udh |iyy4 (tor sliort fteremaltei' reten'ecl to as me jmg notices ot tlie meeting to the members [tmg bave not been compliecl witn. tn tlie men|tion as to tlu'ougli wfiom tae notices were atti|)raecl an opportumty' to put up lus aetence m |i there is a clear violation ot sub-role (J) ot XI-HC-78 3TI^T?iTf^IB> ([W3TI^?T.shHicb •A t»- 3^:T'IWIc1<lp»x(l.M116y,IS<'liy<y, u- c • co^°• ^v7/^oo&, *ITWWawief> «•••»• .»,•.»•••*•«»••.* •< .* ;»»".»:;»".•»';•.»'" A l^flKKW )(yl^^'t'^ ®<TraTflfer3n^9r lli. . yuorom Uas not t>een menl iv. Ihereis nomentiontnat manclatoiy requireiiient as 1 ftave nearcl tlie leamea couns' So.tar as aespatchi.ot notice motion is concemecl, thers is no clear / clavs ancl tlie same was s otlier objection regarcimg non-me were to be sen'ea is concemed, si Uii'ousti wttom it is to t>e seivecli particularly wften tlie notices wq jr'ancftayat ancl tney aU:pai'ticipatq mat tne petitionel' was not atlor| concemecl, on a reaclmg ot Arme^ Aad spoXen m the saicl meetmg. quonim m the proceeclmg ftas no| that all tiis ii members pafticipat| ana motion ot no conlidence was < as tlie otijection tliatresolution ot motion is concemeci. the subjeot meetmg was eonvenecl tor consiil petitioner ana Fancli, Hmt. uai] proceedings and put up their gci^ rqiliecl Uy me petitioner ttanseB ^ ittei'etors, tlie gnevance ot tae deeiamg tne otgection raised t>y| til<<[ci41-< WRTt ft"fS<S tRjWi^ TSSTI? ^rg T'?rs^a^ij3^ [?;-:s; lonea m tlie JMinute Boolc: tio contidence motion was movecl wlucft is a to sub-nile (3) ofRuie 5 ofRules of 1994. a tor me parties. 3t tlie meetmg to consicler tfie no conliclence lispute Uiat tbe notice was aespatclieci Delore eivecl upon Uie petitioner on 2/-K-2UU6. lae ntion ot tlie person tlirougll wliom sunniions mply because tfte notice cloes not mention Uiat it will not rencler tlie meetmg itselt mvaua re already seivecl to all tlie. metTlbers ot Uie a m tlie said meetmg. Ko tar as the otyeetton lect an oi?portumty to put yp las ttetence is ture F-4- itselt, it is evident mat tlie petitioner llie objection regarclmg non-mention ot tlie relevance particularly m tfte Iignt ot tlie lact sd m the said meeting mcludmg tlie petitioner an'iecl out witli a majonty ot p/2 votes. Ko tar Aimexure F-4 cloes not mention movmg ot ttte mattei'.ol tfis meetmg clearly snows tftat ttie leration ot .no coDliaence motion a.samst tte gabai and Ktlilesfawar Prasacl mitiated Uie vancs against the petitioner Wiuch was dully ind tliereaner, the motion was put up to vote. oetitionei' ttiat tfte leamea Collector wmiout tfie petttioner lias sumiiiai-ily aismissed ffle XI-HC-78 sniRTwR-fi* (raT3<!^lsb*li+ ^ u. ?/ A •V ^' NlHrti sh*ii<ft 3:S9T'<it<iici<i, axflwKo, ftditiy wP. ^O- (o^o7/(5<- •""W^ 200 Sii^i iacn (<jcttg<!ii<«T) ewiiWflf^Tsn^T re\.'ision is wrttiout torce. llus. or illegality m aclaptation ot mptio|i requn'es mterterenee t>y mis Couil| 227 ot tfte Uonstitution ot Inclia. Uoi|in is ot tiie opnuon tfiat tftere ts no m-egulanty ot no conticlence agamst tlie petitioner wtuca while exsi'cismg tlie junsaiction uncler Ailicle I'he.retore, tfte petltion is clism^sed at tlie motion stage itseit. qil*l?C1<fl-1 1|t|tlTffte^<p]<;<;l< ^3ff^IT31I^?T Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. E