V'P \g^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION FC1 N0. l-f^S^- /2006 PETITIONER t?.^ ..*' \)<€^^> ^!^" ^^SPONDENTS 0<?' ^ A^ w^ cA ^s-.-.^ Smt. Aabha Patel, wife of Shri Manohar Patel, aged about 40 years, Caste Aghariya, resident of village - Kaunsara, working as a Sarpanch of vUlage Panchayat Kaunsara, Janpad Panchayat Bagbahra, Tahsil and District Mahasaniund [C.G.]. VERSUS •l] Sfate of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.]. 2] The CQllector, Mahasamund, Distnet Mahasamund [C.G.}. SJ.'The Sub Divisional Officer (Revehue) [Prescribed Authority] Mahasamund, District Mahasamund [C.G.]. A] The Tahsildar [Fresiding Officer] Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund [C.G,]. ^ .^ -5] Shrawan Kumar Dhruv, son of Kheduram, Up-Sarpanch of village Panchayat Kaunsara, Village Panchayat Kaunsara, Block Bagbahra, District Mahasainund [C.G.]. 6] Sukalu Ram Sahu, son of Johat Ram Satiu, Panch, Ward No.l, Nand Kumar Chakradhari son of Janak Ram Chakradhari, Panch WardNo.2. Smt. Dhasni Bai wife of Dashrat Sahu, Panch Ward No.3. Smt. Shailendri Bai wife of Gendram Thakur, Panch Ward No.4. \ 7] ^-8] 10] REunadhar Sen, son of Dhasiya Sen, Panch Ward No. 5. ^,11] Smt. Shyama Bai Safau, wife of Kheduram Sahu, Panch Ward No. "8. . '' : , • .' ' - ' ' : ' . 12] Janak Ram Dhruv son of Sukhiram Dhi-uy, Panch Ward No.9. - , '^ '^,- ' • • >13} Grhasiram Dhryy son of Paiichuram. Dhruv, Panch Ward No.IO. RespQndent no. 6 to 13 are permanent residerit of village Kaunsara, village Panchayat Kaunsara, Block Bagbahra, District Mahasamund [C.G.]. WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA UJSU^QUST OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. -<^.- (.. '• .i. Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (C.) N0.4657 OF 2006 SmtAabhaPatel versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. V.K.Pandey, counse! for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. !Vtr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for respondents No.5 to 11 and 13. None appears for respondent No.12. ith ORDER (Passed on 11l" Day of December, 2006) Learned counsel appearing for the pstitioner submits that the petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Kaunsara, Janpad Panchayat Bagbahra, District Mahasamund in the election held in the ysar 2004. it is further submitted by tearned counsel that the so called no confidence motion was ptaced in the general body meeting on 5-7-2006, but could not be carried out. Being aggrieved, Up-Sarpanch and other members filed a reference before the Collector, Mahasamund under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (henceforth 'the Adhiniyam, 1993"). The Collector, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the elected Sarpanch, i.e., the petitioner, decided the reference holding that the no confidence motion againstthe petitioner was carried out. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Coilector has no jurisdiction under sub-section (4) of Section 21 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993. Sub-section (4) ofSection 21 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993 clearly provides interference by the Collector in case the no confidence motion has been carried out. in the present case, according to leamed counsel for the petitioner, the no confidence motion was not carried out. 3. On the contrary, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 11 and 13, submits that the no confidence motion was carried out against the petitioner by 9 votes out of 13 members present. 4. Be that as it may, this involves question of facts, as learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the no confidence motion was not carried out and on the contrary, learn^d counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 11 and 13 submits that the same was cdrried out. 5. The impugned order dated 8-8-2006 (Annexure P-1) was passed by the Coilector without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the eiected Sarpanch, i.e., the petitioner, who is the most affected party in the adjudication. The order of the Collector is bad on the ground that principie of natural justice has not been followed because the most affect party, i.e., the eiected Sarpanch was not served any notice. Secondly, the Collector ought to have considered further whether the Collector was competent to hear the reference, in view of the clear provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 21 oftheAdhiniyam, 1993. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, the order of the Collector dated 8-8-2006 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector, Mahasamund for decision afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner herein in accordance with law within a period of three weeks. It is further made clear that the observations mads hereinabove shall not come in the way of decision of the Collector in accordance with law. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge Gopal