o ‘ i x RI INDIA € I r’ Mm mm SAHU s/o Dwam ka Pras ad 1'10? I Sahu, Panchayat - Karm, *of Gram Panchayat Khaprl,‘ Janpad E’ahci1ayat DOndi LOhafa, Tehsll Dondl Lohara, Blstrlct yum twp. , ' ' t g3 i1" I0&1 riggpownama Khapri, Block—Dondi loharfa,' . f District DUaG,M.P-._ ’ , v i " E 2. Sub Divisionai Gffic'er‘, \ ‘t - of Damn Lohara, Tehs1l Dondilehara,‘ Dlstrlct DuLg, Mm. ‘ ' 3 ‘ 3. JDeputy Directpr of Panchaygt'andV-W; :ke samaj Kélyan of District bum; . i at DUaG, 34.13. ' ‘ ‘4. caLLECTOR ‘of mm , at was, Imp. f 5; ma STATEOF MP} Through I Secretary, in the Depért’nient_.,yof- ' :P'andhayat and Hural DeVel 9p§ién :Véllabh B’hiawan, BHOPAL, .M.1?‘.I IN THL web cow" i JuuicA (yr JABALpus, Myp‘: WIT Pznum NoSLlg 3 $ aooo. .gaassus .. {M Sarp‘anchv of thé’ Gram‘ii’anchayat .1.‘ i3‘articulars ‘of ‘V'thFeE‘Vprel‘EE‘tlJdki‘on‘er’k. } ' a _ . ‘ As giVenih the‘cauée Liz‘itle/gbove‘. I‘HON UNoar: Aa'crwg 296/»? OF r cgwgx‘xiyrxow gEj d ..... £ ‘ , ‘ Xi»HC~22 ‘k, EaamRmRnE€mV@ mww§ WW w P 5488/2000 Era—“W 14% 200 ”2 V The impugned 0rd 'r dated"4¢9o2000 issued by Sarpanchf [View 7/ M WW a wEmmrw@ wwm f€éfm amfmm W $5 14.37;,2001 : ‘ ’ ‘Mra Ashok' Das Vaishnav ifor the'pl‘etitioner. V‘Mr. B.N.Pandey for resp ndent noal Dr.N.K;Shukla, learned D .AG with Gautam Ehadwri § for respondents :4: and 5o Mr’.Pandey> prays £or t me to obtain instructions from his Client. Learned counse for the pétitioner submits that on the bas is of. the docume ts available on record and in View of the statsment maidsat t e .bar by the counsel representing the state, this petition c n be uispose<i of in'as"much as the impugned order is‘uobvi usly unsustainable as the said order was issued under: the directions of the S.D.Ou which is contrary to rule 7 of t e ‘Panchay at Karmi Yojna,1995. An gnglish version, furnish d to the court by the ye titioner of rule 7 reads as under : ” The‘Gram anchayat shall have administrative , control .o er the Panchayat Karmi. The power W, to take d sciplinary action against the Pan- chayat Ka mi‘,‘fo‘rurpe_glect or non compliance of his du ies or for irregularities etc.is a, vested in the Gram Panchayata He can be remo— ved from he post/by the General Body of the Gra‘m anchayat after giVing him’ a show—- e cause not ce and after considering the\/reply, a :if any,gi en by the Panchayat Karmiu” mmgaigaaa) j» ' é “ram- . Gram Panchayat ,‘DondvfLomgra’g'gads aé undér :r- ; " The Sub’ Divisional Of§ficer (i Revenue ) Dondli Lohra by ms lettgr Nbq 766 dated 18 8 2000:, g ordered to remove ShrJ. AJlt Ram Sahu, the § ‘ ‘ Panchavat Karml of Gram Panchayat Khaprl for 1 committing finanClai ilrregularxtleso In compliance with the aforesaid order and ; ‘ in accordance with R le 7 of Gram Panchayat i ‘ Karmi YoJna containe in letter No. F 2/12 /22/P —l/9S Bhopal dated 1 .12395 of 1:4.PoPanchaya1t & Gramin Vikas Vibhag nd gaccording to the deci~ Sion taken by the Gr m ‘Sabha in its meeting datea 1404.2000 & 25 s;2oo‘o,‘smc‘i Ajit Ram Sahu Panchayat Karmi is r moved from the post." Spparently the impuaned order W35 iSSUEd Wider the directions of the S{D O. Even aesuming that mee hind of Gram Panchayat was convened in order to carry-out he directions of the s D O.’ such action would not in my opinion be gnsustainable in as much as it would not have been an independent Apt of Gram Panchayato In this View of thematier I am not inclined to grant time to Mr QPande‘y a i Mr .Pandey produce§\ certain documents ,4/ stating that thiszdocumentgtestif% that meeting was convened-£1.11 accordance with the proViSions of rule 7 of the Panchayat Karmi ‘(ojna the order ¢ removal was ~ issueda It appears that; in View of the unambiguous order issued bn '4.$a2000, I WOUld nOt he$itate to hoid even/ as I have Stated above that even assuming thaticertain Gra’n Panchayat was hel for the aforesaid ourpose of v removal the action woulid not have @w been free from interferenceo Even on éhis scoreQI am of the View that ~ t / and M iimw mm- ‘ . _ wand—am >—1/4(>V: 50,000 ‘- the impugned order musjigoo Deepite Mr.Pandey s insis- SET ”4mm, mag, fawagz WW&W‘W %Ea%m811é$r tense that, he be giveri furtfer time, I am not inclined to grant . ‘ In the result the tition is allowedoThe impugned order dated 4¢9°2000,issued by Gram Panchayat Khapm'. i / is set- . aside. Consequently the w’d r dated’18 8 2000 passed by SDO Dondl Lohra :Ls also sen—aSJ. e. So also the order dated 28 8 2000 (P-Z) is also set-aSLde. I make 1t clear that no other ma—pter 9 P 7% contemplated 1;: rule 7 ‘ $ t! / 1 (k . o€ the Yojna,95. for the v‘ pu ose of removal. If /’ .se—a-éw‘ssed, ‘W ’L , Tecourse to the relevant provisions competent authority should /l or law, C .Catoday. t r Sdl- , . ' / Chief Justice > g 2-9 (:VK at WV : t can be resorted to except