tSZ 7. c^ 'S^sf "4i4|io<i, a-ti|y<ie, f«i<ni'y^< 3D^( W ft;-li<* w sn^i **<i<* HTROI (h*11<sb 'WI,200 sn^i 'q^? ('^fg^r) l^ITW ^lfW 3(1^1 rticle 3 p^wiy^n T^T^ p^ F! J 1. 2. . I: c' ^ r ^ 4. A c o. ("r .6. t, ^l 'u c< c O R' Mr. Raieev Shrivastava, Mr. P.K. Patel, couiisel Mr. Sushil Dubev, Go\rt Heard. , ^ - +Nl<rl41-1 ^l^ldf^f Fs^ ^K^R '^aiRnai'fe!! fCI No. 1336/2001 •/227 of-tlie Constitutioa oflndia avindra Sharma, S/o Madhusudan harma, aged about 34 yeai-s, Occupation arpanch, Gram :pa.nchayat, Aman.ia, R/o illage Amarua, Tehsil Champa, District ajijgir-Chainpa, Chhattisgarh tate of Chhattisgai'h, through the scretary, Departinent oi~ Panchayat and ural Development, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. hawan, Raipur, Chhattisgai-h irector, o.."ancnayat, ^^4-.= •-SLciLC )f hhattisgai'h, Raipur, Chhaiusgarh ollector, Janjgir - Champa, hhai-tisgai'h dditional Collector, Janjgir-Champa, hattisgarh Lib-Divisional Ol'ficcr (Rcvcnuc), hampa, District Janjgir - Champa, hhattisgarh' [oharial Kariarey, S/o Bii-iu, aged about 2 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o illage Aniarua, Post Office Dai'ane, Police tation Sarang, District Janjgir-Champa, l'^1^tatti<Stfai^ •t-lT-'S:i"-1 ii :i. ORD ER counsel for fhe petitioner. br respondent No.6. Advocate for the State^- .^ ^ —78 S^ W R-fi'ti 'PT8TT STT^T'SWN? -o (^ ^~5ET ^|<i<ld'4, siillyis, fqtliyy *11HCTI arW^l W(, 200 SII^I 'T9K; (ipf^^ET) TOiiw^ifcrsn^i 1 eli' inis pennon is airecif dated 20th Febmai-i- 2008 revision petition filed' by Uie| Additional CoUector, Jaiiji operation. of the order passec stai'ed. Leamed counsel foij petitioner was elected S; m.0tion of no conildence was chaUenged the niotion of Conector under Section 21 1993 (fbr short 'Act of 199; inatter was heai'd bv the application ofthe petitioner of no conlideiice passed reyision uiider Section 91 o| the Addittonal CoUector bel Du-ector, Paichayat by the aud operation ofthe order i disposal of revisidn. T'he onlv consideratio^ the Director, Panchavat wa^ the Additional Collector, w] eiiipowers tlie CoUector onll Section. It is argued that i1 1993, fhe CoUectoruicludes agaiast uie oiner ot Aiuiexure P-6, i[)assed by fhe Director, Paachayat ia responden'? No.6 agaiast the order of ;jr-Cham.pa, whereby, tlie effect and 1 bv the Additional CoUector, has been aga|n 'tiiifdii'f *<wdf 4 fs^t <n<«;i< ^r siRn 3D^H fhe petitioner subniits that the arpjaach of Gram Paiichayat-Ainania. A Ipassed agamst him on 12.1.2008. He IT.O confidence before the Additional |(4) of the Paiichayat Raj Adhiaiyam, }1 aizd as per distribution m.em.o, the .l^dditional CoUector, who allowed the laad set aside tfae order of fhe raotion tst hua. Respondent No.6 prefen'ed a thc Act of 1993 agauist tlie order of belfsre fhe Director, Panchayat aiid the tiapugned order has staved flie effect tassed bv the Additional Conector till |i before the passiag of stay order by tliat tlie orier was iii fact uassed bv bereas, sub-section 4 of Section 21 to exercise the powers under that is settled laxv tliaf under the Act of lAdditional CoUector also and fherefore ni r i.aan»i!»sf^t.w' fr, XI-HG—78 sn^rw R;-I ^TT SflfI^T sh+iw "r:'r. s ^^^^^^^WBS i ; S.6 J^O+PX^ '-^- c^ ~5^1 ^WIW^, »tll'M*IS, fq<rll-Hlj,< KMWI <h*<lth •^200 STT^I •q'W (ijcrfg^q) 'uiienereiice unaer revlsion t| passed by tlie Additional Co3 Shii. g.K. Patel, kam(| upon ft'iejudgnient in. tL.e i| ,M.P. cuid fl(hersj argued t[ Section 21 oftlie Act of 19^ Act. The revision is pendin^ is open to tfae petitiouer concemed aufliorities v»ho is| Shri Rajeev Shrivastaj petitioner fairly subinits tha| under sub-section 4 of mauitain.able, tlioiigh the i| questiou oflaw. Takiag iiito considera'l of the Act of 1993 is pen.dii^ Panchayat aiid fiie petitioi|iei grievance before fhe revisior] for iu exei'cise of the writ iu| tlie petitioner t6 niove apprq before the Director, Panch accoidaace wifh law. With the aforesaid ob; '3(')u7r'?"i 'M.'P H T :'257 =bl^d^1Tl "EffR^f "^f 'f^E^ 'lf^l^K i? sifira aii^g v ilie Du-ecTor, raachavai ui ihe order lector was uncalled for. |d counsel for respQndent No.6 relyiag uatter of Sadeai Kunuir Vs. State of hat the order imder sub-section 4 of '3 is revisable luiBer Section. 91 ofthe before tlie Director, Paiichavat and it to inake his subm.issioii before tlie seized ofthe niatter. /a, leamed counsel appeariiig for tlie t the revision agaiiist the order passed iection 21 of tlie Act of 1993 is •vision is to be decided onlv on fhe ion. that the revision under Section 91 ^ before tlie respondent No.2/Dii-ector, lias aii opportunity to raise his al authorities, no iiiterference is caUed .•isdictiou. However, it shall be Qpen to priate appUcation for vacating fhe stay avat, who shalE decide fhe same ia •rvations, the.petition is disposed of. n . . SdA Dhirendra Mishra Judge