c ^- 1^-^/ - .KitlUl-E- Ul-I^UilS IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. CC) N0. /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^.-^. ^^^' ^^y •€s^" o .O-'W J-" •^' Smt. Panmeshwari, W/o. Rajaram, aged about 28 years, R/o. village Patora, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2]~ Collector, Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) 3f Commissioner, Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4l Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 5^ Dilip, S/o. Rajkumar, aged about 40 years, Upsarpanch 6] Sanjay, S/o. Bulchu, aged about 42 years, Panch 7] Aditya, S/o. Indernath, aged about 35 years, Panch 8] Smt. Anita, W/o. Satish, aged about 34 years, Panch 9] Smt. Naiharo, W/o. Brijlal, aged about 35 years, Panch lo] Smt. Sushila, W/o. Basantlal, aged about 28 years, Panch 11] Smt. Maankunwar, W/o. Ramchand, aged about 30 years, Panch 12] Rampyari, W/o. Chankhuram, aged about 35 years, Panch 13] Smt. Bigani, W/o. Pujeshwar, aged about 30 years, Panch 14] Semarsai, S/o. Kendu, aged about 40 years, 15] Smt. Chaliji, W/o. Sahalu, aged about 30 years, 16] Smt. Fransiska, W/o. Jaishankar, aged about 35 years, Panch 17] Smt. Antoniya, W/o. Agustin, aged about 35 years, Panch i8] Smt. Fuleshwari, W/o. Simon, aged about 35 years, Panch 19] Smt. Kanti, W/o. Bhulan, aged about 30 years, Panch 20] Smt. Jageshwari, W/o. Jharha, aged about 40 years, Panch 21] Kedarnath, W/o. Mukundra, aged about 40 years, Panch 22] Hulariyus, S/o. Bifaiya, aged about 40 years, Panch All above respondent no.5 to 22 are R/o. village Patora, Police Station and Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) 23] Presiding Officer Shri M.L. Sahu, Tahsildar Lundra, District Surguja WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSITTUTION OF INDIA r's- s 3 i 3^s\i_r HiGH COURT OF CHHATTSGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETiTiON (0 N0. 1S74 OF 2011 Smt. Panmeshwar *** ^hs, (aw^ ^^ !^ ? yl^ !?s—^ ^*?*- <^t RESPONDENTS versus .^+.-i-r..", f-..f ^l-"!t-ift"V^-'^.-^,y^ J? r**^^-^'Er?> •TSl;3 OT wHn5?S?SQSm & "^ZH3r5 (Writ Pstition under Articte 228/227 ofthe Constitution of indja) Sinele Bench : Hon'bis Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for ths Detitioner. Sh" Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the Stats/ respondents No.1 to 4 & 23. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha. Advocats for the respondent N.o.5. None for the other resoondents. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 30"' day of August, 2011) Sv this Detition. the petltioner seeks to chailenae the legaiity and vaiidity of the order dated 15.03.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Commissloner, Sui'guja, Division Ambiakpur, in Revision Case No.18/PanchayaV10-11, village Patora, Tshsii Lundra, in case of i-L :„ i^:->.,,^.^ ;•» /*hl;,'S^ny.—ir GS^-itim Ar'S-it.TT^i—'!S? •?^ltw5n A 5---» ^i3;i,<K ^.W^Wei'i Qf. ^u/Uiyi-3 V. r'cii jn'iy^i iWS; 3 0; '^yj^i^. The brief facts, as projected by the petitionei", is that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchavat Patoi'a, Janpad Panchayst Lundrs. Oistflct Surauls. Ths no confld9nc© motion wss initlstsd sgairjSt the petitionei' by notice dated 21.02.2011. For hoiding a no oonfidence motion, the prescribed authoritv' sum Sub Divisional OTficer, An'ibikaour. Surguia, fixed the date of the meetina on 4£0-U^,.^-vs ^ . Since the mandatori? provisions of iaw vvas not comp'ied with, the petitioner approachsd ihe Coiiector, District Surguja (Ambikapur) questioning the legaiity and validity of the notice dated 21.02.2011, whereunder, the meetlng of no confidence was fixed on 26.02.2011. The Coiiector, after having heard, being saSisfied that the proper iegal procedure has not been foiiowed, stayed fhe noilce, v/hereunder, the datw for no confid©nc©FTiOtlQn was fixcd on 26.02.2011 . Seing aganeved. Smt. Anita Jaiswai wlth 9 others preferred a revision appiicatlon under Section 91 read with Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh (Appeai & Revislon) Rules; 1985, before the UOiTjH'liSSiOH^r. 1 HQ ^JQmmESSIOHSf, ^3UrQUJ3, UIViSIOrs; AiHDiKSpUfj tMi staysd the order dstsd 03.03.201 1 passed by t'ne Coiiector, by the impugned order dated 15.03.2011 . Learned counsei aooearina for the oetitioner submits that the baiance of convsnience is in favour of the petitloner that if no confidence motion was aiSowed to proceed, the appiication pending before the C-oiiector may bscome purpossless. Be that as 'it iTsav, since the order oassed bv the Commissioner vvas oniy for tiil 04.04.2011 , Le. before the date of hesring on 04.04.2011 , as during this Dsriod. the reievant records were requisitionsd by the Commissioner. Thus. it is not clear asto whether any order has been passed on 04.04.2011 i.e. the next date of hearina, pursuant to She impugned order dated 15.03.2011 . Forthe reasons mentioned hereinabove, without floing Intothe merits of the cs.se. the Commissioner Is directed to consldsr and decide the revision appilcatlon in accordance with Saw, as eariy as possibie, preferably within a period oft<vo weeks. AccordingSy, the writ petition stands dispossd of. No order asto costs. ssngk K. Agi Judge 1q!|FfBw(:;agg^^^8 jUliiltj