-HC—78 ^^ ^FT ^Jch TT^T 3TT^T $h^i<=h 3^cT ^|A||(r'><4, t$TH^JI<S, fcj^iy^ ^^ wN? ........W-()"C6>^a--lf^ 2-60^ 3TT^T '^C^ (^f^c^?) PETITIONER: <=M^?<n<flti 'WT^if ^f\'felst <Rii^i< '^3tfmw^r RESPONDENTS: -Versibs- 1. Smt. Pushpa Gendle, Sarpanch, aged about 33 years, Gram Panchayat Padampur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, Tah. Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Tribaj Welfare Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur Director, Panchayat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (R), Mungefi, District Biiaspur (C.G.) Smt. Kunj'an, wife of Shri Sakhwaram, aged about 45 years, R/o Gram Panchayat Padampur, Janpad Panchayat Mungdi, Tah. Mungeli, District Biiaspur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Ar^icle 227 of the Constitution of India) SJnale Bench: Hoh'ble Mr. Justice L.C. Bhadoo 23-1-2008:- Shri M.K. Sinha, counsel fjsr the petitioner. 2. 3. 4. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. ^ Heard. The petitioner by this writ] ^dvocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. petition under Artide 227 of the Constitution of India has questioned legality ^nd correctness ofthe order dated 3-10-2007 passed by the Director of Pancrtayat, Dtstei^Ra4pyr-lfrf^fe4@i^N©-226/A-89 ^T^I^l'feTO 'OTI 3:^T -yi^l^, ^-rfi<rij!<o, R^l^iy 'WT^I' 9bNI*' "ia^ 200 3^TT{3[% (^II^CT; i^T^^Jt^W^F (15)/06-07 filed by Smt. Pushpa, allowed the application filed by c|i charge Sarpanch of village Padarr(j Orderl Rule 10oftheCPC. Brief facts leading to filing Smt. Pushpa was elected Sarpar^; year 2005, villagers filed a comp| enquiry was conducted. After enq| Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj AJE against which the petitioner hereir| Collector, who dismissed the before the Director, Panchayat wh^ In that revision, respondent No.4 1 Ruie 10 CPC for arraying her a| been allowed vide impugned order. Learned counsel for the p^ Kunjan claiming herself to be jn-c^ prescribed authority nor before tl- Panchayat without any rhyme or respondent No.4 and she has beei some other persons have also filed the revision, thereby they want to d< Having heard learned coui .impugned order. Learned Director respondent No.4 filed under Ord< interest ofjustice to allow Smt. Kur aprfeal Sht ^rafeNh -qn^ <-fec^ ^R?R '^'^fw^^I x-Sarpanch whereby learned Director has le Smt. Kunjan daiming herself to be in- >ur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli filed under this writ petition are that petitioner herein ?h of Gram Panchayat Padampur. In the lint against the petitioner herein in whjch iry, the petitioner has been removed under thiniyam, 1993 bythe prescribed authority, preferred an appeal before the Additional Again the petitioner filed a revision ;h is pending consideratjon of the Director. L Kunjan filed an application under Order party in the said revision and same has ptioner argued that respondent No.4 Smt. ^iarge Sapranch was not party before the (e appellate authority. Learned Dlrector, •^asori has allowed fhe application filed by added as pariy. Not only that, thereafter |an application for arraying them as party in l^lay in disposal ofthe revision. i^e! for the petitioner, ! have perused the Panchayat has allowed the application of 1 Rule 10 CPC holding that it is in the (an to become party that is why appiication ^^s^ ^i^I^lfN^ ^^f^Tf^T^^ •J^f r^l^l^Aj, ®T{l-yJI<0,fsi^l^y 'W?W ^PffcS' 200 aii^r.xr^i? (ij^t^^?] ^fii. is allowed. How Smt. Kunj'an is n4 by Director, Panchayat. In order Rule 10 CPC, it was the duty of and reach to the conclusion that necessary for the disposal ofthej was j'nvoived jn that case. Sub-rule (2) of Order 1 Ru| any stage of the proceeding, eitl^ party, and on such terms as may name of any pariy jmproperly jo| struck out, and that the name of whether as plaintiff or defendant, necessary in order to enable the upon and settle all the questions it There js no finding of the Kunjan is necessary to enable adjudicate upon and settle all th^ Smt. Kunjan was not party bef authority. FJrst time revisional Kunjan and directed that she be a( order passed by the Director, Par jurisdiction, therefore, the impugne This order js being passed No.4 because Issuance of notice disposal of this writ petition and al ;essary party, no reason has been assigned to allow the application filed under Order 1 (:he Director, in the first instance, to discuss resence of Smt. Kunjan in the revision was said revisjon or any jnterest of Smt. Kunjan Director, Panchayat. Therefbre, -___^.^^^__.__. -^?^fel^ih '^I^f '^^fe^ T^i^R ^^feH^^r |e 10 CPC envisages that 'the Court may at ?r upon or wrthout the application of either ippear to the Court to be just, order that the |ned, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be iny person who ought to have been joined, ^r whose presence before the Court may be qourt effectually and completely to adjudicate Ivolved in the suit, be added'. pirector, Panchayat that presence of Smt. |the Court effectually and completely to questions involved in the suit. Moreover, F^re the prescribed authority or appellate pourt has allowed the application of Smt. |ded as pariy/respondent in the matter. The n|chayat is prima facie per^erse and without ^B order cannot be sustained. without issuance of notice to respondent ito respondent No.4 wjll further delay the l^o revision filed by the petitioner before the |:his writ petition is being decided without ^y^^s & fl'tL^"' ^^-^' ^TI^T?iT1^te ?TO'3T?^T^^ <1^ ^r Barve •3:^ ^|!^|^, ^-rf|y<i<5, fsi^iyy 'qmw ^^w '^ 200 31I^?T-^^ (^m^^) I^TW^ia'^it^T ^FS?d4i^ ^iN^ ^^fe^ Tf^R^R ^ ^fw ^^i jssuing notice to respondent No.^j. feels aggrieved by this order, sh^ modification of this order. In the result, the writ petitic|n bythe Director, Panchayatis qua^ jt is made clear that if respondent No.4 still witl be at liberty to move an application for is allowed and the impugned order passed hed. _— Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [-8C—78 ^IT^T ??T fqrii.<^ ^T^T 3TT^Tsb^i<=h 'ys^S ^ww^, ^^'w, {^vftw^ WViv\\ *^|cb {^f) 00 ^ ^3)^oosl 200 3H^T ^^ (l^f^^) ^CTW^f^T ^TT^T 30-^1-2008 Today the matter Js dated 23-1-2008. It is Dointed out ti dated 23-1-2008 psssed in| Pyshpca &€ndJ€vs. Stat<& year of the petitlon has the petition js of the year 2 In • the view of the correct the year of the pe Now the case number be red chiAiI<n<flri ^i*i<yil ^f^^ <Pn^i< ^ ^tRw 3:n^r sted for correction in the order |iat inadvert'entiy Jn the order IW.P.(C) No.443 of 2008 (Smt. of Chhattlsgarh & 3 Othcrs) the b^en mentioned as 2007 whereas '008. above, Registry is dlrected to frition as 2008 instead of 2007. jd as W.P.(C) No.443 of 2008. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge