HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Art. 227yNO 5854 OF 2008 PETITIONERS/ (Applicants) RESPONDENTS OBJECTOR 1. Saroj Kurre, W/o Shri Narayan Kurre, aged about 25 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Belhari, Tehsil Patan, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). 2. Amit Agrawal, S/o Shri Ram Khitawan, aged about 27 years, Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Belhari, Tehsit Patan, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Sociat Weffare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipu^(CG). 2. Director, Panchayat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Addttional Collector, Duig, District Durg (CG). 4. Sub Divisional Officsr, Patan, Districl Durg (CG). 5. Kanhaiyatal, S/o Sunhar Basod, R/o village Belhari, District Durg (CG). (Writpetition under Artide 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents No.1 to4. Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for the respondent No.5. ORALCffiDER (Passed on this 13 day of October, 2008) By this petition under Article 227 of the Con^itution of India, the petittoners have chanenged the order dated 10-9-2008 (Annexure-P/1) passed bythe Director (Panchayat), in revisioncase No.126/A.^/07TO (Smt. Saroj Kurre & Another vs. StErte of ChhsUisgarh) 2) Shri Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of th® petitionere, has ptaded reliance on adecisionof Division Bench ofthe --7-' :.<; Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Bansmani Prasad Veerbhadra Shukla vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and others . 3) In the matter of Bansmani Prasad (supra), the prtitioner, President ofJanpad Panchayat, was given a show cause noticeafteran ex parfe enquiry accompanied by particulars of charges without stating as to what was the material or evidence availaMe m the ex parte enquiry. The report of the enquiryw^ also not-supplied. In the said backdrop.the removat was held as itlegal Thus, the aforesaW decision, as cited by leamed counsel appearing for the petitionere, is not relevant to the facts of the present case. 4) The indisputable facts in the instant case are that admittedly the petitioners, who happened to be the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, have locked the premises, which was constructed by the Govemmentauthorities for running school building. The building was not handed over to the Panchayat and the Panchayat on its own without handtng overofthe building, lockedtheabove stated premises on a ground that tt Was necessary for cleaning the above stated premises. The action of the petitionerscan be termed as unauthorized & Hlegal, as they have encroached upon by locking the above stated premises, which wasneither handed over and nor in possession ofthe petitioners. 5) Law in respect of principles of natural justice is well settled that the principles of natural justtee cannot be put in a sfrattjacket formula. tf no prqudice is caused by not giving notfeeto the authorities, |l is not necessary to afford anopportunity of hearing particularly in a case like the present one, whereadmittedly without authprity; the petitioners have encroached upon the property of the Govemment and locked tho premises. 6) In flie matter of Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J & K Bank Ud. and Others , the Hon'ble Supreme Courtobservedas undsr: "22. The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admjtted, an enquirywculd be an emptyfoFmality, Eventhe principto of esfoppel will apply. [See Guyeewan Garewal (Dr^ v. Dr. Suintra Dash {(2004) 5 SCC 263} The prtrtc4>les <tf natural justice are required to becomplied wth having regard to the fact sifaiation oyaining therein. It '1980MH-J34 l^ffi05)5SCC337 z ^L?^ <0 ~~^ ./> cannot be put m a straitjacket formula. It cannof be applied in a vacuum without referenc® to the ralevant facts and circumstsnces of the case. [See State of Puiyab V. Jagir Singhf(2004) 8 SCC 129} and Kamataka SRTC v S.G. Kctturappa {(200S) 3 SCC 40Sfl. 7) Thus, the orcler impugned order is unexceptionable, jyd & proper and does not warrant any interference in exereisa of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution <rf IncUa. 8) In view of the foregoing, the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is hereby dismissedsummarily. 9) Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Aghihotri Judge ~<..