-f ^y c Q 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition No..........Jro:3&....... of 2002 4- Petitioner: Daras Ram Tandan, aged 54 yrs. S/o Shri Achche Ram, R/o Jajang, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa. VERSUS Respondents: 1. Kholbahra Ram, aged 42 yrs. S/o Late Shri Nanki Dau r/o Tohitadjh, Post Jajang, SarPanch Gram Panchayat, Jajang, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Sakti, District Janjgir- ^rampa. PETITIONUNDER ARTICLES 226/227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^SS:i.^ffSa—.^...:^—"- XI-HC-22 T ^ ^^ ^tprn^, '^Tft?F^, t^rray 3Ts^-f ^T _ f^TWSTi^T "^RN'^Tfia WTmr^rrr^' /^^- 2(M) 'f^^' W^I -^^TW Tff^ 5-8-2003 Shri Soinant Paiidey^ 4^vocate for t^le pefitioner. Shri Rajesh Pandey, G<j>vt. Advocate for the State. Heard. Thls petltlon imder Aijticle the petitioner on the grour|d Panchayat Raj Adhiniyaxn. lodged by Uie peliUoiier, tlie the Adhtniyam were started. Annexm'e-I. Annexure-II is ^-[qf^ft^ 'RTR^ff "q fe^t Tf^RZH ^T 3TT^T -3Tr^?T 226/227 has been med by that respondent Mo. 1 was a Sarpanch and the Sub-Divisjional Officer started proceedings for renioval of respondent (No, 1 under Section 40 of the subniitted that there£ifter 18/4/2002 by tl-ie Sub Divis^ the sald order has not beeiji t is statcd that on a coniplaint proueeduigs uiider Sectioii 40 of Copy of the coniplatnt is filed as the notice, which is said to be issued by the Sub Division^l Officer to the Sarpanch, It is orders have been passed on ^onal Officer for reraoval, Copy of flled. The petitioner contends ttiat tie liad applied for certij&ed copy of the order, wJaich tias iii^.^-r:^—- B8:it';i ^s^ 8Sn»i Saii XI-HC-22 OT^^T^T f^F^TI^T w^^ ~^ri T^ '^I^Icri^, '^N7T^, f^^W^ •wq^T^Trt^' •M 2(M) 3:H^I ^RH^R TfftH -^ 7^m-r?T7fsR ^T^i ^ fe^ T^fCTT ^T 3TRTH ^TT^T not been granted. He h^s filed the said application as Annexui'e-III. The relief c .aiined in the petition is that respondent No. 1 raay kindly be reinoved froni the office of 1 Sarpanch of Orani Pancha^at Jsgang and further action ui accordance with law may jkindly be ordered to be taken against him. Leamed counsel for the State on the other hand subiuits that the petition fil^d is vague, cryptic and does not contain thc rclcvant dctails ^nd concisc statcmicnt ofniatcrial facls. II is iiot eveii meiilio^ied as lo wliat wiit is clatuied by the petitioner. Notice for dei^and ofjustice has also not been made. It is submitted that tijie petition be dismissed. But, in the opinion engaged a counsel^ should of the counsel. Por df 226/227 ofthe Constitutlon be properly pleaded and the iJLOt this Coiirty a party, who has suffer because of the raistake invcJMng juri^diction under Article loflndia, the facts are required to |relevant law is to be quoted. The [-iy r Xi-HC-22 ^^I-^T •f^^^T^I ^W^ •'Rft^l" ~3~^[ '^s^id<Ls, '^TPK, •F^fraFf: •EnTRr^^t^" ••^ 2(N) •^^' 3n^r'^n^R Ttit?r -3- ^•[qf^q^T "QTH^f ^ f^T7t ^^RR-^TCT pet.ition shoiild contain tlTJe condse statement. of material facts. When the inatter is $led ui the High Court through a counsel, especially under A^ticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India, proper care shoLild| be takcn. Counsel is cxpected to mention as to what writ, oi^der or direction is clalmed In the petition. It stiould containittie relevant details aiid concise statenient of niaterial f^|:ts. Violation of law, rules or regulations should be spectlied. So far as thc prcscnt jcasc is conccmcd^ thc pctition is vague, tlie drafUiig is very c^isual. II is iiot eveii meiilioiied as to what writ is claimed by tl^e petitioner. Notice for demand of justice has also not been mNe. Annexure-I also is not dated. The petitioner and the cdunsel both to be careful while making the pleadings. The i^ that the Syb Divisiony lonly relief, which can be granted, Officcr ^hall supply aU the documents including the or^ler of removal of the Sarpanch, if any, to the petitioner as demanded by filing an application. If f— F XLHC-22 Z-TR'^T^T ^n^ ^l^ %~RN"^fi?f Haad^/- ~S~^ ^TrqT^^, "^Tf^F^, 3Tf^? T<<H^R Trf^a -^l- the order ofrenioval has l|>een passed by t.he Siib-Divisional Officer and fhe saiae hjas not been challenged by the Sarpanch or stayed by fhe rcason why thc sainc wiU shall be given effect to. Accordingly, this subject to the observationsj/directions ^^pfpi ^rn^ff ^ f^-u2t ^R^R ^T 3TRPT 3TT^T ^onipetent court of law^ there is no not bc givcn cffect to. Thc saxac wjrit petition stands disposed of m.ade hereinabove. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge L ';! '^' ^- ^