^ ft/ HiGH COURT OF CHHA-TTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRiT PETiTION (C) N0. 3685 OF 2009 ^ PETiTIONER: RESPOhSDENTS 1. 2. 4. Ravi Shantor Chouhan, S/o Shri Mitthu Lai Chouhan, sged about 43 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Purgaon, R/'o Wllage Purgaon, Tahsii Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CO). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat Sociai Welfare, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Sevak Ram, S/o Bahau Ram Sahu, aged 50 years, R/o Village Purgaon, Tahsil Biiaigarh, District Raipur (CG). Laxmi Prasad, S/o Tirath Ram Sahu, aged 50 years, Village Purgaon, Tahsii Bjlaigarh, Disfrict Raipur (CG). Panchram, S/o Udey Ram Sahu, aged 40 years, Village Purgaon, Tahsil ijlaigarh, District Raipur (CG). Sub Divisionai Offlcer, Revenue, BHaigarh, Dist. Raipur (CG). Ch'ief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur 6. 7. Diredor, Panchayat, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur(CG). 0/Vrit petition under Arficle 226 of the Constitution of Inciia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri N.K. Chhatterjee, counsel for the petitioner. t. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER CQRAL) (Passed on this 22nd day of Juiy, 2Q09) 1. Heard ieamed counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns ttie order ci^ted 22-5-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Directof (Panchayat), Chhattisgarh, -' Raipur, in rev'ision case No.44/A.89/Year 2007.08 whereby the 2.- At', r~^ Direetor has not found any irregularity or illegality in theorder dated 24-10-2007 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar, Raipur, jn appeai No.109A/89 Year 2006-07. 3. The facts,in nutsheil, for disposal of the case, are that soms compiaints were made against the petjtioner. The Sub Dh/ssfona! Officer without examining the retevant witnesses-and documents came to fhe conclusion that the allegation made againstthe petitioner was not found proved. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, Sevak Ram (respondent No.2 herein) & others preferred an appea! being appeai No.109 A/89 Year 2006-07 before the Additlonal Coliector, Baioda Bazar, Raipur. The Additional Collector having considered a!l the aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh without affording an opportunity of hearing to ali the parties concemed and withoutgoing intothe merits ofthe case passed the order dated 28-4-2007. The Additionai Coliector accordingly came to the conclusion that the matter requires consideration on merit and after hearing al! the parties concerned, the order dated 28-4-2007 passed bythe Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh, was set aside and the matSer was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the compSaint afresh after examining the merits of the case and affording an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 5. There-against, the petitioner preferred revision before ths Director (Panchayat). The Director (Panchayat) having examined ths entire case did not notice any irregularity or iilegallty in the approach of the Additional Collector. Thus, the revision was accordingiy dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. ! do noi find any error in the approach taken bv the Additional Coilector and comina to lllll :i!!]i'<ii:i ^' Gowri the conclusion that Ifte order was passed by the Sub Divisional OfRcer without examining the merits and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concemed parties, the order impugned herein afflrming the order dated 24-10-2007 passed by the Additfona! Collector is just, proper and does not warrant interference by this Court. !n view of foregoing, tfte petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed atthe mofon stage itseif. /.••".. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri -7^£; Judge ili illli:il