M ‘I H ‘83» IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. WRIT PErITLON No. Jt‘g O ,_ X /2005 PErITIONgR éw OT f3 / Ram Prasad Verma S/o— Salik Ram aged about 46 years, At present — ‘ President, Water Shade Committee, R/o— Village- Etai, Block Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Panchayat and social Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, District Durg (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Durg District Durg (C.G.) I The Project Officer Water Shade (Jal Grahan) Mission, Ghoghra Nala, Navagarh, District Durg (C G ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA «5* D ; XI—HC—22 'EW, wan—gr;W @ Heard both the counsei on The petitioner, who was ‘ Committee, Village: ltai, District: Article 226/227 of the ConStitutioi and correctness of the order dat d 10-2-2005 (Annexure P-9), whereby the Area, Vikas Khand: Navagarh has been :ation approval from Gram Sabha has been . proposed for dissolution of Water Shed , he is directed to act in accordance with admission. the President of erstwhile Water Shed Durg, has preferred this writ petition under I of lndia, questioning the legality, propriety Project Officer, Water Collectie informed that as per his communi taken and the Gram Sabha has Committee, .Village: ltai, therefor the guidelines, 2001. The petitioner’s case is at the Water Shed Committee, ltai, was registered vide Annexure P-1 a accordingly, it was constituted. Without any complaint against the peti oner's Committee, respondent No.3 has directed‘the Project Officer to act n accordance with the guidelines, 2001. Learned counsel for the etitioner argued that the Committee was constituted in the year 2001 an the Committee is being removed without following the procedure envisage in Water Shed Committee Rules, 2001. Having heard learned co nsel for the parties, l have perused the Copy of the order hereby the petitioner’s Committee was constituted has not been placed n record to show that for how much period oreover, the Water Shed Committee Rules petition. the Committee was Constituted. envisage that by resolution of th Gram Sabha or by the Project Officer, the Committee can be removed. Per sal of the order Annexure P's reveals that ,W)’ I 3 oo $33K (Q ‘ Wm w 200 S m matter Warmth mm I mammaita wafaa‘la mat ti fair @1211? smm ” {vmv Mr. F.S. Khare, counsei for the petitioner. . Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1, 2 and 4. XI—HC—22 mmmm olvea to remove the Commmee.‘ Pe‘r‘usal of the representation Annexure P 10 submitted by the petitioner herein to the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat: Durg, shows that a resolution by Gram Sabha was already pass d for removal of the Committee, but the only grievance raised by the petitio er is that resolution of the Gram Sabha has been passed in the absence o the members of the Committee. The Water Shed Committee Rules no w ere envisage that the Gram Sabha would consider the removal proposa in presence of the members of the Water Shed Committee. it appears t at there were certain complaints against the petitioner’s Committee and tha is why the Chief Executive Officer directed the Project omcer to consider Water Shed Committee Rules. of the petitioner's Committee. In the circumstances, i c and it is liabie to be dismissed, Consequently, M.(W.)P. stand disposed of. Sd/- L.~C. Bhadoo ‘ the Gram §abha has already r the proposal and act in accordance with the So far, no order has been passed for removal lo not find any substance in this writ petition, accordingly, it is dismissed in limine. \lo.736/2005, l.A.No.1792/2005 & 1793/2005 Judge (disalaa)