-y^,^-'".. C.cG^t BEFORE THEiIQN'BI^ HIGHGOURTOF CHHATTISG^RH ATBILASPUR WRITAPPEAI, No.1^ ^ 2Q10 r'/:^: APPELLANT. : Smf.Shail Singh Pafihar, wife of PETITIONER . ; • • rti_,:,:;.r,_^_ T,-_^.- : a.-_.L.' T^^i—....' ;Rarn Pratap Singh PaTillar, aged about 49 years, R/o. Village Tedhadaura, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ' '. Versus , . •r RESPONDENTS 1) ' State of Chhattisgarh acting fhrough Secretary, Agriculture Department, DKSBhavan, Raipur (e.G.) 2) Managing Director, ChlaattisgsifEi. State KriShi Vipnan Board, Beej Bhayan, In front of Chhattisgarh Hotel, Ravi Grain, Telebandha, Raipur (G.G.) ^ . '.:•' . . . . : ' • • ':' .- ' ' :3) Maliendra Singh Savanni, Deputy --. Direclor, Mandi Board, Regioriat Of&ce, near Pratap Chowk, Bilaspur ^(C-G-) ; .:L';''1: :.'^ .•..•:•' ^ :' . .'. '. • '; . • -: • :4) Shri R.K.Gypta, Assistant Accourits pfficer, OfKce of Deputy Director,. ^. Mandi Board, Regional Office, near Pratap CIiowk, Bilaspur (C.Gr.) 2: X/:I ^ . : ' ' ! :5) Janak Rain Maravi, son of hot known, Member Krishi Upaj Maridi, Mungeli, District Bilaspur, R/ o. Village Bagbudwa, Tahsil Mungeli, District BUaspur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(it OF GHHATTlSQAmi HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BE^CHI ACT, 2006 AGAINST THE QRDI^ BAT 23.04.2010 PASSEDBY THE HON'BLE SINGLEBESrcH QF THE HQN'BLE COURT IN W.P.fCt No.6354/2009 •^N HIGHeOURT©FeHHATITSGARH:BILASF>UR W. A; No. 161 of20^IO Appellant Smt.ShaiISiughPariliarA •Veisus;' •'1 ' - •'^. .^•i.: ••''•^'' ::./'^ • :'.'''1.." Respondents State of GhhattisgaaEli & others WRI'I'AEI:'BftL/iJN0EE:gE©3!©N.S.(i)£^'I'HE©HlMl''HSQARH mGHC©QIWteBEEAL%(3;]3IVISt©NBENCHiAeT. 22006 DB: Hon'ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, & Honlle Mr. N, K. Agarwal, JO. Shri K; A, Ansari, SeiuGrAdvoc^ withSIiriVipin Sto the'appellflitt.' , " . '. ' :, 1. ' ' . : .;: ' ; : :,,1 • : • , • "1; SUn M. P. S. BUatia, Govt Advbcate fbr the respaudeal: No. 1. ^ SIu^:A,'S.';KachwaIia,;AdvoGajlKfi3rj;y^.ie^^ .,,: '.gi,.' §n8SSSU%Bi3%) -£- ?t: jMBg|3'Heari^l^leaxae(l^YGOuiMeB:l:appesiru^ leanied cbuitsel appearuig &F fhe'resppmlents. 2. This wiit appeallias beeu filed^ainst fhe inrpugnedjud^eM aaA' orderdafed23riApril,20lO,^asse(Iby1teleai^dSing]e^ W/ R (q No;«354/2009 (Smt S&ail Singh Pariliar Vs. State^c^^^ • :ChIiattisgarh& others).:•,:•,..:•:1''',1^^ ' ; :'. ::, : ' •' ••.' l.-:,: / 3. M flie very outset,^it iiiention fhatlSie writ appeal was filed earlier by the respontlexils agamst the same orderof tlie learuedrSiilgle iLhldge dated'23td April,^^^ roiBch •the instant writ appeUaut was alsft represented by learned Seitior Coun^ Sfari K. A. Ansajri, wlio M'appeaiiag today also and affiep Iieafciag learned cdunsel for fhe pai^s a detailed'order was passe^ Wrtt AppealNo. 110/2010 (Maaa^gDirectoT,C.G.State^^ Vipanaad Beard & others Vs: jSiat. Shaffl Siagh and others), cin s: s'ft.^ !^ i :! 28.4.2010. TIierefore, after heariag leamed counsel for (Be parties the matter was fiii.al^adjudicated. 4. Siibsequent to the same, on tbe basis of fhe directions of the leamed Single Judge as weU as offhis Court in writ appeal; a show cause itotiee was issued agaiust fhe inslaiit writ appeBant on 5.5.2010 (Aaxifixure WA-5), xneutioiung tiuerem. fhe cltai^es and eaUuig reply to ftie saM sh(?w cause notice as fowliy bn ftiat basis she inay not 'be reraoved finm fhfi post of Ctiau-raaa, Krisfai Upaj Mahdi Samit^l Nhaageli, District - Bila^ur,^^^^^ powers eonferred in sub-sectibn (2) of Section 55 of ffae Chhattisgarh ^KjAsIi^ Upaj Maadi AdWniyam, 1972 ( laereinafter refeired to as"the Aatuiuyam, 1972"). 5. Qitce iu garlier ^ra^ appeaL fhfi^^^^ adjudicated by thjs Cpuif aftergiving 6pportuiu.ly cifhearnig to the parties concexaed, there is no sense to adjudicate the same in fhe secdnd writ appeal filed after fhe issuance af the sllow cause notice dt 5.5.2010, in makiug coinpliauce of the difectioiis issued by the leamfid Single Judge aud iLhis Courtitt writ appeal. . - 6. It is pendnent fo taenti.on here fhat fhe earlier Writ Petition Np. 6354/ 2009 was filed by the m.stant wnt appeUaut Challerigmg fhe order dated 26.10.2009, reinbvingfhepetitiQnerfinm fhe post of Chairmaa, KrisBi Upaj Mandi ;Samiti, Muageli i^ the powers conferred uitder Section 55 (2) ofthe Adltmiyam, 1972 and the learaed Siugle Jwtge quashed fhe unpugtied order of reinoval on the gpound ffaat fh.e reasonable opportunity of hearing was not awarded tc> the petitioner, against wlucli llie^'writ appeal was filed aad ttds Colirt decided the saDaie, as already infintioned above, ' irpholdiugthfi decisioiioffhe teanied. Siitgle Judge. .E' 7. Infact the iasteut writ appeal has beeii filed wheu a fresh sKow cause notice dated 5.5.2010 has been issued pursuant to the above order passed by the learaed Single Judge as well as this Court, .inter alia on the gTound that fhe writ appeUaat canxiot be rexaoved from the post of Chauinan as fhere are ininor fiuancial irregularities aUegedly coiniiutted by her. Reliauce has been plaeed by ftie writ appeUant on fhe judginent ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court ia CivUAppealNo. 222 of 2010 (ShatdaKailashMittalVs.Stateof M.P. & ofhers) wluch -was the case of an elected President of fhe Nagar Palika, Jora, Distnct— Muraina ia the State of Madhya Pradesh, reinoviag him fixim. the post of President of Nagar Palika, tSora. : •• ' ••' :. - .: 1 : ' ' • 8. Infheiastautxaatterthetei!iovalx>^ Siiigle Judge aud that decision was upheld ui the writ appeal, The instaut writ appeUaat GhaUeiiges'tye order of the leai2ied Single Judge by the iustant writ appeal after issue of the show cause notice dated 5.5.2010. Thereisno reinovalorder ia the instant c&se. At present, the writ appeUaut has been issued olily a show cause notice t6 which she can subinit faer reply. At fhisstage, as fhis Court has not considered the nature ofthe notiee one way or the ofher, the gravity ofthe chai^es is not tp be seen at fhis stage. It is for fhe aufhorily. who has issued fhe notice, to see fhe ^ravily of fhe chai^es aad decision mafcing authority should took into the grievattce ofthe writ appeIlaiit.Tt is for fhe writ appellant to raise the question challengmg tfae show cause by way of subinittm.g her reply Showiag fhe decision of fKe Hon'ble Apex Court as well as otiier provisions af law. Hcwever, at this st^e, leanied counsel for the.writ appeUant submits fhat the writ appeUaat has already submitted reply to the show cause ia which the above queslBons have been raised. 9. Therefbre, at this stage we decltnfi t6 uiterfere as fhe inatteriStias • already been adjudicated by the leamed Single Judge in writ petitfon as weU as by ttus Court iu writ appeal inwhich aUstiie parties were repiesented by the coiinsel. However, we furfbier pbseFvethattheinstantrespondentsshaIlmakecompliance ofthe eariier orders passed by .the leanled Siagle Judge ta wnt petitibn^as weUasbYthisCourtiawrttappeal. . 10. In view of the above luentioned facts add circuiastauces, fhewnt appeal is disriussed subject to tbe observations inade herein above. No orderas to costs. , : . . . ^ Sd/- LM. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge TliBlau- ;:^ 9 1»RI