^ Tb ) IN THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (, >^ CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition No. /2004 ./' Petitioner: Respondents: Hemin Bai Lehre, W/o Amn Kumar Lehre, aged about / 30 years, resident of village Khapri, Block Dhamda, f District Durg (CG) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) / 2; The Director, Panchayat and Rural Development )epartment, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S Bhavan, 5Y'^* Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). i^O^^^^ Gram Panchayat, Khapri, through Upsarpanch, ^/}^[w' Grom Panchayat, Khapri, Tahsil Dhamda, District Durg y^y ^ ^.^ ^' A' ,.' 4. Smt. Gulaba Bai Joshi, W/o Shri Joshimal Joshi, aged about 45 years,r/o Gram Panchayat, Khapri, Tahsil Dhamda, District Durg (CG)^ <:' ^•^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2^6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ^z-S XI-HC—78 5:Tlt^T ^? K^IFF ••""TT^T^T^lfe ~S~^ ^!i^!|^4, ^iill^4!^, [^(ni'y^i ..^/.:..P.:....'...7.?.^./.<2:0.0.1 ^I^T'q^^' (^f^^) 13.7.2004 Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for t^ Shri Utkarsh Verma, Panel Lajwyer for the State. Heard both the counsel. The petitioner has preferred tjiis writ petition under Article 226/227 pf the Coiistitution of India, being ag^rieved by the order dated 13 Febmary, 2004 (.4nnexure P-1) passed by the pirector Panchayat & Rural Development Dq?artment, respondent No.2, in apijieal No.70/A-89/2003-2004, whereby the Director Panchayat has stayed the c^emtwn and implementation ofthe order dated 24.12.2002 passed by the 4dditional Collector, Durg, whereby the Additional Collector declared respo^ident No.4 as not entitled to contmue on the post of Saipanch on account of The petitioiier's case is that Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhini therefore, she became disentitled to made to tliat aspect and respondent Sarpanch ofthe village against whi ^Frf^fl^ 'RTH^ff ^ fe^t '<f^$lT ^ 3?f^H.^it¥r e petitioner. the fact that she gave bit-tli to 10th child after commg into force of the prjovisions of Section 36 (1) (m) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniy^ni» 1993. ,th •espondent No.4 gave birth to 10m child after coming into force of the prjovisions of Section 36 (1) (m) of the ^am, 1993 i.e. after 26th January, 2001, continue as Sarpanch. An enquiry was 1^0.4 was declared disentitled to continue as Sarpanch, therefore, it was ord^red that respondent No.4 ceased to be Ai an appeal was prefeiTed by respondesit No.4 in which the Director Panch4yat has stayed the operation vide order dated 13th Fsbmary, 2004 and the ^etitioner moved for vacation of the stay, but the Director Panchayat is neitlietj vacating the stay nor deciding the appeal "ofr^sp^iKteffN^A— /\^ v r XI-HC-22 -3'^r ^w^i, ^-a)^^<o, I^^i^jy 'q?W M..^.:ni WW'TT %W^ 'fN^ST' 200 ^L- 37T^T^T 'f^ri^^n^ ^HTcb <Hf$a Soma/Sunita ^TT^T'^TT^TT'?T^T courlsel aijd Having heard the leamed facts and circumstances ofthe case the Additional Collector declared res Sarpanch on account of her giving ought to have decided the appeal pro^iptly granted stay, then he ouglit to have de^ It is therefore, directed that the| Director fhe appeal or decide the stay app| expeditiously as early as possible bu^ receipt ofa copy ofthis order. With the aforesaid direction, th| Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.l^ stand disposed of. Pailies are entitled for certifiedJ c^iqi^q}^ Tnq^f ^ 'f^^ <P?t^r< ^w^r^iT^T for the parties, having regard to the looking to the nature ofthe case, once ^pondent No.4 disentitled to continue as |>irth to 10th child, the leam@d Director and more particularly when he has ^idedthe appeal on urgent basis. Panchayat either should decide ication after hearing both the parties, not later than 30 days from the date of petition staiids disposed of 104/2004 and I.A.No.4249/2004 also opy ofthis order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^^fe^. ^f'A