HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ Review Petition No.14 of 2010 PETITIONER: Nagar Panchayat, through its President, Nagar Panchayat, Kunkuri, District Jashpur Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Joint Secretaiy, Town Administration and Development, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Commissioner cura Assistant Secretary Town, Adininistration and Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Sub Divisional Officer, Kunkuri, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (CG) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Collector, Jashpur Jashpur, District Smt. Umeshawari Bai, W/o Deoshanker, aged about 28 years, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Barakata, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (CG) Present: Shri ViC. Ottalwar with Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'bl®Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. O RDER (4-10-2010) 1. Respondent No.6 filed a Writ Petition (C) No.6598 of 2008 against the notification (Annexure-P/2) whereby Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri was constituted by amalgamating Revenue Village Gadakata and Gram Panchayat Kunkuri and notice (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Collector whereby the Collector in exercise of powers under Section 126(2) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Acf) disestablished GramPanchayat Gadakata consisting of village Gadakata on account of constitution of Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri. 2. The petition was allowed on 19th February, 2010 and the order passed by the Collector (Annexure-P/1) and notification of Annexure-P/2 constituting Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri have been quashed. 3. The petitioner herein has filed this review petition on the ground fhat after issuance of notification Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri came into existence and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kunkuri became the President and Panchas of the said Gram Panchayat including respondent No.6 became Councillors, however, in the writ petition, they were not arrayed as party and the order under review has been passed without hearing Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri in violation of principles of natural justice. In the meanwhile, election of Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri has been conducted by the State Election Petition and the above election cannot be called into question except by an election petition presented under the provisions ofthe Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. 4. Heard. 5. Indisputably, respondent No.6 being Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gadakata had impugned the notificadon ofAnnexure-P/2 issued by the State Government regarding constitution of Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri and notice of Annexure-P/1 issued in purported exercise of powers under Section 126 (2) of the Act. Respondent No.6 has also claimed relief on the ground that the notification of Annexure-P/2 and notice of Annexure-P/1 had been issued without following the procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 and also under the Act. 6. It is settled law that where constitutional validity of any Act, Rule or Order is called into question, the State is the only necessary party and the affected persons are not the necessary party. The necessary party are those against whom relief is sought and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. The ratio of law laid down in the matter of The General Maaager South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another Vs. A.V.R.' Siddhantti and others {(1974) 4 Supreme Court Cases 335} is followed. 7. In the present case, the notification has been issued by the State Government and the order under review has been passed after hearing" the State. 8. So far as the ofher ground that election in the petitioner's Nagar Panchayat has been subsequently held by the State Election Commission and such election could not be set aside except by way of election petition as provided under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 is concerned, since the notification issued by the State Government constituting Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri has been set aside, consequence ofthe same would ensue. 9. In the result, we find no substance in this review petition, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Barve Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge