r 1 &^2 ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^3^ OF 2009. PETITIONER Seva Ram Dhruv, S/o. Late Shri Anup Singh Dhruv, aged about 27 years, R/o. Village Padkidih, Tahsil Sigiha, District Raipur, (C.G.) VLE R S U S RESPONDENTS Y-'^K ^•^? 4^F <- -^- . -»• ';" .-^' \-y ^ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, |>^ Through : The Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Deparfment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. ^ Tejram Verma, S/o. Kriparam Verma, R/o. Village Padkidih, Tahsil Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) ^ j a,h., ^•^ • sy'^ ^ 3. Gram Panchayat Padkidih, •/\ ^'' . •. Through : Sarpanch, R/o. Village Padkidih, Block Development & Tahsil Simga, District Raipur (C-G.) 4. Secretary GramPanchayat ;i Padkidih, Block Development & Tahsil Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) ~T~- 9- G 5. The Chief Executive Officer, ^—Janpad Panchayat Simga, Tahsil Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^•^^^ ^ 4F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5909 OF 2009 PETITIONER Seva Ram Dhruv RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others ^ Post for pronouncement ofthe orders on the _Z^'day of February, 2011 Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge .^'s. ,,.^'^ risg^.l ^r—^' o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5909 OF 2009 PETITIONER Seva Ram Dhruv RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petitions underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate for the respondents No.3&4. Shri Raghavendra Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Y.S.Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.5. (Delivered on this ^day ofFebruary, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and vatidity of the order dated 10-12-2008 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Director (Panchayat), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in Revision Case No.148/A-89/07-08 (Seva Ram Dhruv v. Tejram Kriparam Verma & Others), by which the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29-04-2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar, Raipur in caseNo. 113/ A-89/06-07 (Tejram Verma v. Seva Ram Dhruv & Others), has been rejected. The facts, in nutshetl, as projected by the petitioner, for adjudication of thecase, are that the Janpad Panchayat, Simga invited applications for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi for Gram Panchayat Pakdidih on 15-01-2007. The petitioner V. '?. ~y •^ e along with other candidates applied for the said post. After following the due selection process, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi by order dated 09-04-2007 (Annexure P/1). Being aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 herein preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhatapara. The Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 26-02-2007 (Annexure P/2) dismissed the said appeal on the ground of non-maintainability of an appeal against a resolution, as the respondent No.2 had not chaltenged the order of appointment of the Panchayat Karmi. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.2, preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar, who by order dated 29-04-2008 (Annexure P/3) allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2, quashed the resolution dated 16-1-2007 and directed to appoint Panchayat Karmi, in accordance with the rules. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Director (Panchayat) in revision case No.148/A-89/07-08. The Director completely ignored the issue involved asto whether an appeal against the resolution was maintainable before the Sub Divisional Officer, upheld the findings recorded by the Additional Collector and dismissed the revision. Thus, this petition. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the orders passed by the Additional Collector as well as the Director (Panchayat) are not in accordance with law, because before passing the impugned orders, the authorities have not at all appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case as \" wel! as the relevant provisions of law in its letter and spirit, as no appeal is maintainable against the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat when there was a specific order appointing the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi. For want of challenge of appointment order, the entire exercise of entertaining the appeal by the Additional Collector, thereafter dismissai of the revision by the Director (Panchayat) was contrary to the provisions of law and the samewas null & void. 6. On the other hand, Shri Ajit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, would submit that under the provisions of Rule 3 (d) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995") any action of the Gram Panchayat is appealable before the Sub Divisional Officer and thereafter to the next authority i.e. Additional Collector. The Director (Panchayat) has rightly rejected the revision petition of the petitioner, as the Additional Cotlector was futly competent to entertain the appeal under the provisions of Rule 3 read with Section 91 ofthe Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1993"). 7. Shri Ajit Singh would further submit that pursuant to the order dated 29-4-2008 passed by the Additional Collector, fresh selection for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi, in accordance with the rutes was initiated and the respondent No.2 was accordingly appointed as Panchayat Karmi vide resolution dated 26-5-2008 (Annexure - R/2) and approved the same on 27-8-2008 (Annexure - R/3). Thereafter, order dated 5-9-2008 (Annexure ~ R/4) has been passed appointing the respondent No.2 as Panchayat Karmi. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 was also declared as Panchayat Secretary under the provisions of Section 69 (1) oftheAdhiniyam, 1993 by order dated 11-9-2008 (Annexure - R/5). 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 9. Indisputabty, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner on 11-9-2009 wherein the orders dated 10-12-2008 (Annexure - P/4) and 29-4-2008 (Annexure - P/3) passed by the Director (Panchayat) and the Additionat Collector, Baloda Bazar, respectively, were challenged. The appointment of the respondent No.2as Panchayat Karmi was done on 5-9-2008 (Annexure - R/4) and thereafter, he was declared as Panchayat Secretary on 11-9-- 2008 (Annexure - R/5). There is no challenge to the appointment of the respondent No.2 on the post of Panchayat Karmi in compliance ofthe order passed by the AdditionalCollector and, as such, the petition has become infructuous. 10. So far as consideration of question asto whether a resolution can be challenged when there was a specific order in favour of the petitioner is concerned, the same has become academic and the same may be considered in an appropriate case. 11. It is well settled that if a case has become infructuous on the facts ofthecaseand question remains to be decided for academic purpose, it is not necessary to examine the case. In Basheshar •^^•-,' Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another, the Supreme Court observed as under: "12. ...We take the view that this Court should not make any pronouncement on any question which is not strictly necessary for the disposal of the particular case before it. We, therefore, confine our attention to Art. 14 and proceed to discuss the question on that footing." 12. In Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi2, their Lordships observed as under:- "4. ....In this view grounds raised in the petition for setting aside the election of the respondent have been rendered academic. Court should not undertake to decide an issue unless it is a living issue between the parties. If an issue is purely academic in that its decision one way or the other would havenoimpact on the position of the parties, it would be waste of public time to engage itself in deciding it. Lord Viscount Simon in his speech in the House of Lords in Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Jarvis observed : 1 do not think that it would be a proper exercise of the authority which this House possesses to hear appeals if itoccupies time in this case in deciding an academic question, the answer to which cannot affect the respondent in any way: It is an essential quality of an appeal fit to be disposed of by his House that there should exist between the parties to a matter in actual controversy which the House undertakes to decide as a livingissue." 1AIR (1959)8d49 2(1987)Supp.SCC93 o^D 13. In Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and others , the Supreme Court observed as under :- "121. The orders passed by the High Court have to be viewed against the backdrop of the events and the position of law discussed above. The circumstances in which the High Court passed the orders and the factual and legal considerations which weighed with it in passing them speak for themselves. However, since the cricket matches have atready been telecast, the question of the legatity or otherwise of the orders has become academic and it is not necessary to pronounce our formal verdict on the same. Hence we refrain from doing so." 14. \n State of Manipur and others v. Chandam Manihar Singh the Supreme Court observed as under:- "10. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions, we find that as the High Court's direction in favour of the respondent's tenure which is to expire on 15-10-1999 has almost worked itself out and less than a month remains for him to act as Chairman of the Board, the first grievance raised by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in connection with the removal of the respondent by order dated 19-10-1998 has become of academic interest. We, therefore, did not permit learned Senior Counset for the appetlants to canvass this point any further before us. That takes us to the consideration ofthe second point." 15. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ArnitDas v. State of 6//7ar5 observedas under:- 3 (1995)23cc 161 4(1999)7SCC503 5 (2001)78cc 657 -:y^ -^ "^. ^ v "6. It is settled practice that this Court does not decide matters which are only of academic interest on the facts of a particular case. (See with advantage: Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antutay and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi.)". 16. tn Prakash Singh Badal and ano'therv. State of Punjab and others6 the Supreme Court observed as under- "39. So far as the question about the non-apptication of mind in the sanction or absence of sanction is concerned, this has been answered Jn the first question i.e. where the public servant has ceased to be a public servant since he has ceased to hold the office where the alleged offence is supposed to have taken place, the other questions really become academic." y 17. This Court, relying on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the cases as aforestated, in Tritiya Verg Shaskiya Karamchan Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit v. The Chhattisgarh Information Commission & Others7, held that question of iaw of academic interest cannot be adjudicated upon. 18. Inviewof the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, without going into the merits of the case, this petition is dismissed as havsng become infructuous. 19. There shal! be no order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 6 (2007) 1 SCC1 7 Writ Petition (C) No 4313 of.2008, decided on 1 1/08/2008