y;:.f;ia..i. .^ .?i' E^ C-,mm:( '-'»?" I3 THEmGH<X)UiCTlOiSJlTmGAfl^^ CHlBA'ITISGARH '; ^:.;-;y'['::^': wiaT^^pEiaTi^ PESnnoNER Grain Rahchayat Lakhram, Through: Sarpanch. ^ .^<\' -'l.-^"v-!>1''' ^^'^'' ^**^ V4^»***' - '^^>'"' VE»sus '^"wv. ^ws^ RESiPOIffiNENT ^^ -..s^"' : Santpsh KumarKaiwSft. ^ ^ ^ -Bx-S^et^ ^aiwhayatKaria^ Gram PaochyataLalchram, TehsilandDistt.Bilaspur(C.G.) WlUT PETlTIO^CNDEai a TICLE 2S6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .^NfSlb m li— B^ w XHC-T). XI-HC-22 an^T^r f^iN;sn^T sf!<-<ffi(lfeT (\... ^o *<r(R'ii ^tTiqi s^'^nqRTO', ®Tfl+ri6,Rictwy ±l:f>^.5.//.?./^(rD6 •"••'•"••""••'•"•••/H^ 200 Ri'e«a 3n^T?RTRR:Hlw 19.09.2006 coufasel Trtvari Laralu Shri Anand Gunta. Shri Anaad Kumar Caveat Petition No. 767/200^ Heard. This petidon has beea the vaUditv of order date4 rcvision No. 555/A./89/(15)|/03 Raiour, CG. The briefTacts are that] resoondeiit fPachavat KaraluB conducted some uiaiurv aad he susnended fhe responderlt Beiag aegrieved by fhe afored respoiident filed aa apDeal was decided on 4.9.2002. Tht bv tiie Additional CoUectorl adiimustrative control over of Gram Pauchavat and thel susoend a Paachavat Karmi) aforesaid order passed bv Sarpanch of Panchayat,Sin|i icvision petition before fh| dismissed bv the impuened fhe present writ petition ha4 The Director Patichavat alsol tUe 'biitci'n'i t)iH<iTfftei^l'<Ri+t;i< ^Sff^ITSn^T for the oetitioaer. i. counsel for fhe resoondenf on filed bv Gram Pauchayat challengins 21.06.2006 passed ui Paachavat !-04 bv the Director Paachavat, on soiue complauit made aaauist fhe a|u1 before the S.D.O., the S.D.O. fhereafter, by order dated 21.06.2001, from ti.ie post of Paachayat Karmi. said order. passed bv the S.D.O.. the Ttefpre the Additional CoUector which appeal was allowed aad it was held that according to the Rules. the Paachavat Karm.is are ia the hands S.D.O. was havrag no authoritv to as in the preseiit case. Against the the Additional CoUector. fhe fhen |t. Godawan Bai. filed the aforesaid fc Director Pauchavat, which was <t>rder dated 21.6.2006, agauist which been filed bv fhe Gram Panchavat. took tlie smular view and held that XI-HC-22 •3TI^T?iT f^rNsn^T T-i><«R''ffR@' M.*^ ^^ 3^ •^WWtl, W^\Wl6, RfdKHy ^M.SO^.I.I3J^^ <<it<Mi stitii<*i """"""""""" qg 200 fa'tl^'"""": sn^T?^rTWHf?a' 2 under the provisions of Paacf having no power to suspend) accordine to the Panchavat thayat Raj Adhiaiyajm, fhe S. D.0. was a Panchayat Karmi. It was held that Karmi Yoina 1993 and also according to the ineiao No. TTC-2/12 thAt n|ot tbe issued bv State ofMadhva a Panchayat Karmi is ia revisional authoritv held and furfher accordine to the order nassed by the CoUectolr with law aad the same was Learaed counsel for other provisions contrarv fc authoritv. I am not iaclmed to petition is dismissed at the However, if so advis^d Hberty to take appropriati^ accordaace with law. The Caveat Petition and disoosed of «hi'!)I'd<fl-fimRff^' teiA <Rt+4ii ^srf^iTsn^T /22/TTr?TQ W/ 95 dated 12.09.95 •w\^ t-e.t^.i^/t-t. j.f-ft^i^^i^^\^ Pil'adesh, the admitustrative control over |±ie haads of Grau Panchayat. The accordine to the aforesaid scheine lineiao issued bv the State ofM.P., fhe to|r on 4.9.2002 was fuUv ia accordaace required to be interfered with. petitioner could not oomt out anv the view taken bv fhe revisional W) admit this oetition for final Iiearine. The nliotion stage itself. [, the Gram Panchavat shall be at steps aeainst the respondent ia I^o. 767/2006 also stauds dischareed Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (^y^r) /i