^ f K ^ <9- f^z ©B IN THE HIGH COURT QFLC^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. OF 2009 PETITIONER: \°^;.- ^?'?^ <f^' ^'y^. ^ - Laxmi Dhar Shrivas, S/o- Radheyshyam Srivas /Aged abozi.t 42 years, R/o Village Gram Panchayat Dharashiv, Block Bilaigarh, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) t^^' ^' ^-*i VERSUS RESPONDENT(S): 1. State of Chhattisgarh— ^hrough it's Secretary Department of Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) oo'x' ^' ^'^ 2/ Director, r Raipur (C.G.) .^ ,<?^ 3. Upper , Balodabazar, / Raipur (C.G.J Panchayat, Collector, Distt. 4. Chief Executive Offieey— / Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G) / ^. Sarpanch, Gram f^ Panchayat Dharashiv, Block Bilaigarh, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ~^^ <'K-... 5C s'ilGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR PETmONER RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETETEON (S) N0.40 OF 2009 Laxmi Dhar Shrivas Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shrs Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shrl D.R. Suran, Advocate Genera! with Shrl N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 to 3. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.4. Ms. Fouzia Mlrza, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed cn thls 5th day of April, 2011) 1. At the very outset, iearned Advocate General appearlng for the State submits that on instruction recelved by hjm, there is no power under the provjsions of Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, read with -provisions of the Chhattlsgarh Panchayats (Appeai and . Revlsion) Rules, 1^5 (for short ^he Rules.1995"), which can be ©xercisedby the Additlonal Coliector in place of the Collector. 2. Learned Advocate General further submlts that the sao moto actibn was taken by the Addltional Coliector without having Jurisdiction under the Rules, 1995. Thus, the matter may be rerrsifcted back to the ColEector to consider the same a fresh on its own rnerit and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. 3. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner agrees with the submisslons made by the.learned Advocate Generai. 4. Accordingiy, the order dated 03/11/2008 (Anraexure P/1) passed by the Director, Panchayat as we!l as order dated 20/02/2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by the AddltJonal Coitector, Baloda Bazar, Dlstrict-Raipur, are set aslde and the matter Is remltted back to the Coilector, Ralpur to consider the matter afresh on its own 'merit and pass appropriate order in accordance wlth law. 5. !n view of foregolng, the writ petltlon starsds dlsposed of. No order asto costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun