^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (-0 No. 6287 of2007 PETITIONER NON-APPLIC,WT N0.1 RESPON-DENTS Satyawadi Kanwar S/o Sfari Gautam Kanwar, Aged about 31 years, PJo village Khairmal, Post Kisadi, Tahsil Saraipali, Distriet Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat & Social Weifare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamimd (C.G.) 3. Upper Collector. Mahasamund District Mahasamund CC.G.) 4. Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Arjunda, Block Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5. Specified QfBcer and Sub Divisional OfEcer, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 6. K.L.Venna, Nayab Talisildar & Presiding Officer, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) NON APPLICANT N0. 2 7. Jaydev Bhoi S/o Shri Ramprasad Bhoi, Aged about 38 vears. 8. Pitambar S/o Shri Diwakar, Aged about 65 years. 9. Fulchand S/o Shri Laakldhar Bhoi, Aged about 35 years. lO.Premprasad S/o Shri Jugeshwar, Aged about 40 years. ll.Kishore Kumar S/o Shri Tankdhar Mishra, Aged about 33 years. 12.Trinath Bhoi S/o Shri Fulmani Bhoi, Aged ^t about 50 vears. 13.Meena W/o Shri Santlal Sahu, Aged about 40 vears. 14. Santoshini W/o Shri Dilip Sahu, Aged bout 38 vears. 15.Jamuna W/o Shri Sitaram Sidar, Aged about 40 years. All above respondents 7 to 15 are Panchas of Gram Panchayat Arjimda, R/o Gram Panchayat Anunda, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) RES N0. 7 TO 15 APPLICANTS. WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTPJTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for thepetitioner. Shri Anm Sao, Govemnient Advocate forthe State. Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the respondent No. 7 to 15. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 24th day of July, 2009) Heard. 1. The sole grievance ofthe petitioner is that the impugned order dated 06 October, 2007 (Amiexure P/9) has been passed by tfae Additional Collector. District Mahasamund holding that the no confidence motion against the petitioner, who is the elected Sapancb, was carried out, without aifording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. 2. On perjsal ofthe proceedings dated 3 October, 2007, it appears that petitoiner had not advanced argument except submitting certam judicial pronouncements of the higher courts. Shri Paranjpe, farther submits that the petitioner requested for adjouniment to enable him to engage services of an Advocate. The same was rejected and even . -->-^;-~:>l 6.;^t. ^ '®s»a.i ^'TjJ' A^- mlin®could not be supplied by the petitioner. The respondent No. 7 to 15 in theh- retum dated 20 April, 2009 have not rebutted the averments made in the petition except that proper opportunity to the petitioner was granted, as it is evident from tlie order sheets. Ifthere is aay specific averment in the petition, the respondents ought to have rebutted or explained the said averments. This is not the situation in fhe present petition. Even otherwise, it appears that the petitioner was no afforded an opportunity ofhearing. The respondent No. 7 closed the case on 3.10.2007 for orders, which was pronounced on 6.10.2007 within aperiod ofthree days. The petitioner was at least entitled to one adjoumment when he requested for engaging sa-vices ofanAdvoeate. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 06.10.2007 (Aimexure P/9) passed by the Additional Collector, Mahasamund, is quashed. Without going into merits offhe case, the case is remanded back to the Coliector, Mahasamund to consider and decide afresh, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity ofhearmg to all the parties, as eariy as possible, within a period offour weeks. The petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit J