32- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH; BILASPUR iVI.C.C.NO. 75 OF 2006 Applicant Non-appiicants Vs Umakant Mahobiya Ku. Kiran Mal! and others. Post for order:4>o'-4-2007 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^3. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH; BILASPUR M.C.C.No.75of2GOe Appiicant Umakant Mahobiya, S/o. Palbhadra Mahobiya, R/o. Mahobiya Para, Chhukhadan, District Rajnandgaon, CG. Respondent No.3. Non-appiicarats Versys 1) Ku. Kiran Mail, aged 31 years, R/o. Near Forest Naka Dau Chourha, Khajragarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon, CG. ... Petitioner. 2) State of Chhattisgarh, through : The Secretary', Environment & Town Development, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Respondent No.1 3) Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan through its Chief Municipai Qfficer, Nagar Panchayat, ChhuiWiadan, Dist. Rajnandgaon. Respondent No.2 (Application for review of the order dated 02-01-20085 SB: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Agnihotri Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, counse! for the applicant. Shri Vinay Pandey, Panei Lawyer for non-applicant No.2. ORDER (Passed on ^ G'KApril, 2007) 1. After notice v^as duly sen/ed on ali the respondents, non-applicant No.3 herein (respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No. 1659/2002) Nagar Panchayat, Chhuikhadan, filed its return stating that this Court may pass appropriate orders. Non-applicant No.1 who vvas the petitioner in Writ Petitlon No. 1659/2002 despite service of notice did not choose to appear or make any representation in the petition. Learned counsel for the appiicant and iearned counsei for non-appiicant No.2 appeared and they were heard. - <z.- 2. Thls is an appiicatlon to review the order dated 2-1-2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1659/2002. ^ IKNI" 3. On perusal of the judgment/order, it appears that apparent error has been crept in the order sought to be modified hereln. The petitions were aliowed on the ground that the statutory requirement of Section 331 of the Chhattisgarh Municipaiities Act, 1961 (for short, "the Acf) provides that the State Government may modifv or reverse the order of a Divisional Commissioner, Coliector, Prescribed Authority or any other offjcer appoint ed or authorized by the State Government under this Act as it deemed fit; provlded that no order shaii be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appeai and to be heard in support of such order. 4. The State Government vide order dated 29-7-2002 in exercise of its power under Section 331 ofthe Act, quashed the Resoiution No.1 passed by the Standing Committee of Nagar Panchayat, Chhuikhadan, and the Resolution No.1 dated 8-9-1998pa83ed by the Eduoation Committee without affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties interested to appeal. This Court, while hoiding that the petition deser^es to be ailowed on the short ground that the shov^ cause notice and opportunity of hearing were not given to the petitioner which is mandator/ and other provisions of iaw, quashed the impugned termination order dated 2-8-2002 passed by Nagar Panchsyat, Chhuikhadan. Pursuant to the order dated 29-7-2002 passed by the Government (by mistake the order dated 29-9-2002 was mentioned ^vhich was aiso quashed). it appears that the order dated 29-7-2002 passed by the State Government is not in accordance with iaw as no proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was afforded, it ought to have been quashed and remanded back the matter to the revisionai authority exercising power under Section 331 of the Act, to reconsider the case after issuing show cause notice to all the concerned interested parties. - 3 ^ 5. Accordingly, para 10 of the order dated 2-1-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1659/2002 Is reviewed and modified to the extent that the order dated 29-7-2002 passed by the Government is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the State Government for deciding the case afresh by jssuing proper notice to ali the concerned interested parties. Raju it is ordered accordingiy. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge