^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH ffl BIL.^PUR. ^K[T PSTITION N03^3//0^ PETITIONER ~~: .rfff .-• /(L1'-' <^ y Smt. Lata Devl, D/o. Shri'Rup Das> 30 yesrsi Sarpanch; Gram panchsyat Tilsara» Teh. Bllha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). V S' R 3 U S Stste of chhattiscrarh» Through i The Secretary panchayat & Social Welfare, D.K.S. B'jilding> Raipur (C. G.) . 2) The Additional collector, ,'? Bilaspur (chhattlsgarh). 1) 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur (chhsttisc?arh) . The Chief Executj.Ve Officer, •Janpad Panchayat, Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (chhattisgarh) .^" ,^?KIT PETITION JNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ S.6. i-jrat—-.^^' an^r^r Tw sv^s Sh^i^h •(diK -g^^nqRR, ^•dl'y'lti, fa'lt-t-iy tlllCTTWll^) o.>....^..N.o..3.Li.'l>1/ 2^3 290 SlAiil ^•WWdftd Df 06/02/2004 Shri Praful Bharat, coun^ Shri Sanjay K. ^aiwal| rcspondents/ State. Petitiouer who is a Sart>( TeIisU, Bflha, District, Bilaspijj- uaderArticle 226/227 offhe the lcgality, correctness aad dated 09/12/2002 passed by| Officer, Bilaspur. Brief facts leatfing to petitioner was aa elected Sarj); Tehsfl Bfflia, Dist Bilaspur. petitioner fhat she had iacurr^d Off Pauchayat over aad above no.3, Sub Divisional Ofiicer, aa enquiry aad caUed for the aad aftcr receipt of thc petitioner. The petitioner submitted her reply to ttie evidence of the bofh parties wa^ for orders on 07/12/2002. hercin preferrcd a rcvision fhe poiats ftiat wifhout givingl petitioner thc respondent no.3 learaed Additional CoUector •jiaach of Grain Paachayat TUsara, p^r, has preferred this wnt petition qonstifution of India, has questioned p^opriety of the ordcr (AEUICXUTC P/5) respondent no.3 - Suto Divisional flUna iacurrtd f4e cnquijy shofr beii>re <Wlfa<B-i NW<rtT4 (s><3 <Rlti,tt ^<MFd13)I^a el for the petitioner. Depuly Advocate Gencral for fhc fpuig of fhis petitioB. are that the ~j)aach of Gram Panchayat Tilsara, fi coxnplaint was inade against ftic expenses without auy resolution sanctioned amount. Respondent |(fter registering th.e case ia.sti.tuted enquiiy report froin fhe TehsUdar rcport, hc issucd notice to ttic apl)eared before the respondent no.3, cause notice on 27/11/2002 fhe recorded aad fhe matter was fixed Agaiast fhis order, fhe petitioner fhc Additional CoUector raisiag aa opportunlly of hearing to ttie Iiad fixed the matter for orders. The p^sed aa order (Annexure P/2) on fc •'.: 3* l'"'l sm^i^Bt R'ti'b SIESI sk*Wi 'Uiitt •g^ -iiww^, ^.y*iii. l«i<'ii«y *ll*l<tl Shlich 0'ff^ ^rS'^R ^?^ took pet^iO violation cdn 03/12/2002 staying the respondent no.3 - Sub pctitioncr inoved an appl^i (Annexurc P/3) mentionmg matter has been stayed b^ day fh^ respondcnt no.3 the niatter for oiders on 09 i on ffae application offhc stay order passed by the Divisioaal Officer m impugned oxder. Therefore,j for quaslunent of ttie order saine has bcen passcd revisional Court i.e., Additi^ •^ / opporti.ttutyofhearingtothej I have heard leamed Leamed couasel for thc stay graatcd in favour 0) opportiuuty of bearmg to the impugned order Sarpanch on the grozuid On tbe other hand, argumcnt and supported Perusal of order dated proceediags before respond^ evidence ofboth the parties fuhher *w{ciA'i *)WfB'ii'feA <fsitgi< ^T 3!S3T 3)ftff proeeedings pendiug belbre fhe qivisional Officer. Oa 07/12/2002 ;ation liefore fhc respoadcnt no,3 ^herein that fitrther proceedm.gs ia tfae fhe Additional CoUector aad on that icjk fhis appUcation on record and fixed 12/2002 without passing any order t^ioncr. On 09/12/2002 ia spite ofthe 4dditional Collector, the leamed Sub of the stay order passed the fhe petitioner has inoved fhis petition 4ated 09/12/2002 on the ground that x^ntrary to the stay gi-aated by fhc i^nal Collector aad without giving an jpetitioaer. for the parties. petitioner subuiits that iu spite of thc petitioncr aad without giving an petitioncr, respondent no.3 passed v}ng tfae petitioner from fhe post of cdunsel ttte tlje removin of nlisconduct. leaj-ned counsel for tfae State opposed fhe of respondent no.3. 27/11/2002 (Armexure P/1) of the no.3 reveals that on that day the 4ras recorded and the inatter was fixed -ZZ1-. thc brder ipond^at sn^r'^i Pt-SM S^S S&^T^) W??T •5^'.:qpIRPT, a-glti'Ko, i««lt*l3?- WWIT»W°b -M 209 •ftre^' n^w 3iRW?WIW -^fl e^ure for orders on 07/12/20()2 03/12/2002 (Amiexure P/| No. 13/20,02-2003, Additio4al stayed the operation of the Sub Divisional Officer - dated 07/12/2002 (Aime^iu inoved aa application befoi^ OfBccr xncntioning thcrein Additional CoUectQr, Bilasp^ may be adjouraed aud otj Divisional OfGcer - respond^ni but had not passed any orp ordcis on 09/12/2002 aiid| tir order. The order impugn^ granted by fhe Revi^ibnal the Revisional Court aud < even she was not given an oj In vicw offhc abovc p4 am of the opinion that the 4 Sub Divisional 0£B.eeroughl fhe impugned order as th^ Court and even fhe proceedj opportunity of hcarfag was order dated 27/11/2002 recording the evidence orders. Therefore, in vie] ofbdth i*W?d'41"( 'Wi^41s^ A*SR ^^ftpon^w and the perusal of order dated 2) reveals that ia Paacbayat Revision CoUc<<tor, BiJaspur ia fhe last para, 4>rder dated 27/11/2002 passed by the r^spondent no.3. Perusal of the order P/3) reveals ffaat fhe petitioner fhe respondeiit no.3 - Sub Divisional piat the stay has becn graiitcd by thc ia the matter, therefore, the hearmg that dayie., 07/12/2002 the Sub d^nt no.3 took the application on record, ler. However, he fixed tfae inatter for on that day hc passed fhc itnpugned [d has been passed in spite of stay <Iourt in utter violation of the order of allegation of fhe petitioner is fhat [iportunily ofhearing. liats raiscd and pcrusalofthc record, I ijapugned order per se is iUegal aad ttie tb have rescued himself from passiug stay was granted by fbe Revisioiial id^ng dated 07/11/2002 reveals fhat no Igiven to thc pctitioncr. Perusal of thc (Annexure P/l) reveals that after the parties, the matterwas fixed for }v of fhe above, the impugned order fltte dtn< ||H^il|l |l|(IWW XI-itG-22^ <i-»t ••ttt'St!<'N, 'SatePJB, 1«<W«»3<. 'f®^.^^ ^ 'a^t^'^E^I i? •s o^ itt»i«tg»<tt<t( T£;.^^h2ll2 --S^'208 SiAiK i'WKK. dgct ^- ajid caunot be sustauied Accordingly, fhe impugnjed aad fhc rcspondent no.p restore fhe case on its accordaace with kiw aftej the parties. <&l<^CT^-i W'^'^ fe%t •^a^,« ^sSw^t fhe sauie is liable to be set aside. otde»dated 09/12/2002 is set aside - Sub Divisionat Officcr is dirccted to Drigtnal uumber and pass the orders in giviug an opportunity of heariag to botti •obscrvations aad dircctions, fbis writ of. Consequentty, M.W.P.no.3123/2003 With thc afoicsaid petition stands disposed| also staads disposed of. Parties are entMedyor certified copy ofttus order. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge