;^'!®;s^se ^1 ^^I^J.-.S" 1§; ^^H^^'S^. 'r'.. a s. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION FC1 N0. ^2-o3 /2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Harikirtan Diwan, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Dukal Das Diwan, Secretary,, Gram Panchayat- Sonpuri, Post Office- Mitthunawagaon, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur [C.G.] VERSUS :y^^J State of Chhattisgarh, Through- •••**'^y Secretary, Panchayat and Rural y " ,..•••' ^ yecretary, ^•y"^V*'" -..•"' Development, D.K.S. Bhavan, ^.•^^"^.>"" ' 2] The Collector, ''ye^).'.'-'" District- BUaspi-ir [C.G.]. 3] Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Bilaspur [C.G.]. / 4] Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Kota, District- Bilaspur [C.G.]. ^ ^0o^ ^ .c^\ ri!^'t^ \°^Q' t>- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22f0F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ilflL. Petitioner : i-lar*i Kirtan Diwan Versus Reqiondents ; State of Chhattisgarh &others Sirgle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: KE6H COURT OF CHHATUS6ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Q No. 6209 of 2006 ¥- Shri Ashok Swarnakar, counsel for the Petitioner. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Oeputy Advocate Seneral with Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for respondents No, 1 to 4/State. OR&ER (Passed on 14th November, 2006) 1. The petitioner, being a Secretary of the 6ram Panchayat Sonpuri, under Jonpad Ponchayoit Kota, Oistrict- Bilaspur has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to fne Colfector to implement the Section 36 (o) of the Chhattisgarh Puichoyat Raj (Sondiodhan) Adhiniyam, 2004. 2. Ciause (o) of ajb-section (1) of Section 36 provides that no person shall be etigible to be cn office-bearer of Panchcsyat who - 'even after 1 year of being elected, does not have pour flush latrine in his residential premise'. 3. TTie petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to invoke -the provisions of clause (o) of aib-section (1) of ^^ Section 36 of the Panchayat Raj Avam 6i-am Swaraj Acihiniyam, 1993 against the office bearer of the 6mm Ponchayat- Sonpuri. 4. ieamed counsei for 1+ie petitioner aibmits that a genera! body meeting of the 6ram Ponchayat was he!d on 3.9.2005 and •rtie resoiution was passed for impiementation of amendment ctouse (o), aforesaid. When even after lopse of mora than one year the concerned office bearers of the Sram Panchayat did not adhere to -the aforesaid provision of ckuss (o), the petitioner wrote u letter dated 17.4.2006 (Annexure P/2) to the Joint Director, Ponchayat A Social Weifare, Bilaspur daid the Coliector, Bilaspur for taking action on the office bearers of the Panchayat, but no action has been tcd<en ti!l date. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, I have perused the reievant papers and provisions of the Act 1993. Section 36 (3) of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Sworoj Adhiniyam, 1993 clearty provides for making an appiication to the Collector for redressai of 9fi®vances<md aib section (4) provides +hat ony person aggrieved by the decision of Collector or Commissioner, as the case. may be, under sub- ^ction (3), may, within a period of 30 days from the date of such decision, oppeal to Commissioner or Bocu-d of Revenue respectively whose orders in such appeal shall be final. 6. The petjtioner hos completely ignored the statutory provisions and has filed this petition without availing the alternative remedy. 7. In view of the above, I am of the opinion •Hiat this petition is vague, frivoious <md tontamount to abuse of judicial process. Thus. this writ petition is dismissed, being devoid of factua! ground, with cost to be quantified Rs. 500/-. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge &Ahash