HK3H eOURT OFCHMAmSGARH AT BN.ASPUR WJ».(CV No.l5aof2007 PefiBoner AppeBant Dertiatal, Aged stoout 46 yaars, S/o Sanundram Sahu, R/o Gram Panchayaft, Khaira, Post Jhabadi, Tahsil Kasdol, Distru^- Raipur (Chhattisgarii). Veraus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarti, Throiuh Secr^aty, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur. Distritf- Raipiu- (CG) Collector, Baloda Bazar, Dfetrfct- Raipur (Chhatfisgarti). Sub Divisionri Olfioer, Bilaigarh, Tahsil Kasdol, District- Raipur (CG) Panchayat In^ector, Kasdof, TahsB Kasdot, DiWtct Raipur (ChhalUsgarti) Ratanlal, Aged about 45 yeara, S/o Lutu Satnami. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Gorelal, ^ged about 40 yeais, S/o Ramsahayak Sahu. 7. Meluram, fiQed about 41 years, S/o SamaruSahu. 8. Kirtan, ftgwS about 38 years, S/o Bhagirattii Sahu. AU above Respondents No. 5 to 8 are R/o ViUage Khaira, Tahsii Kasckrf, Dirtrict Raipur {Chhattlsgarh) 9. Jawahar S/o Madan Sahu, Aged dxaut 32 years. 10. Puni Bai Satnami, W/o Sartfram, Aged about35years. Respondent No. 9 and 10 are readent df Vtllage Khaira, Tahsil Kasdol, Disfrtet Raipur (CG) 11. Director of Panchayat, ChhatBs^rh, Raipur, Disirirt- Raipur (CG) SB: Hon'ble IV!r. Jusfice SaUsh K. ^nihotri,*! Shri Manq Paranjpe, Advocate for the p^Hioner. Shri Ufearsh Verma, Defwty Govt. Advocate for the re^ondenls No. 1 to 3. Shri H. P. /^arwal, Advocate for the responctsnt No.e/Caveator. •s-'.- ORDER ( Passed on thfe 16111 day ofMarch, 2007) The foltovwng order ofttie Court is passed bySatish K. AgnUiotri, J. 1. The p^ttioner has flled ttws pefition uncter Arttete 226 of Vtw Con^tufion <rf India chaBaiging the order dated26.2.2(»7(Annexure P/22) passed ty/ the Dirwtor of Panchayat, Chtatfisgarti, Raipur in Revision Case No. 128/A- 88/05-06. .- -— @ 1<\ Thakur 2. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the pteadings and documents annexed to the petitton. it appearsthat the Director Panchayat has not considered all the grounds raised by the pefitioner in his memo of revision as well as during the arguments, as alteged by the leamed counsel for the petitoner. Admittedly, the fact is that ttie Sub Divisional Officer in his order dated 25.3.2(N36 (Annexure P/19) dkt not find sufficient reason to declare the pefitioner as disqualified. An appeat wsis moved by the complainant and ottiers to the AddiUonal Collector. The Additional Collector vide order dated 29.8.20C»^nnsscure P/20) passed in Panchayat Appeal Case No. 95/A/89 - year 2(X)5-(%, set-asicte the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer writhout direcfing a fresh enquiry and directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to take steps for remo^ng the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Khaira. The findit^ recorded by the AddiBona! CoUector was, to deciare the petitioner as disqualified as per the provisions of Section 40(1) of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1883. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved, by the order dated 29.8.2006, passed by the Additional Collector. preferred a revision befors the Director, Panchayat Govt. of Chhattisgarh. The Director, Panchayat without examining the facte that the petitioner was initially not found guilty by the S.D.O. , did not consider all the pointe raised by the petffioner in his rewsion as well as in the arguments and dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 26^.2007 ^nnexure P^2), afRrming She order passed by the Addittonal CoHector. 4. In view of the foregoing, it is necessary to remit back the matter to the Director, Panchayat to consider the revision afresh after aflording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties, consider all the grounds, raised by the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance witti law. 5. This peb'tron is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No order as to cosls- ^~~~sd}T~"~::-\ j SatishK.Agnihotn Judge ,; .