r !Cl IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT QFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR^(C.G.) W. P. LClNo, ^jAD of2011 ^' PETITIONER Neelam Kaushal Chandrakar, aged about 37 years, W/o Shri Kaushal Chandrakar, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Gudhiyari, Tabsil-Patan, District-Durg, R/o Village-Aamalori, Tahsil Patan, District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS \v/-<? y''. -^ -^i .••' \y.\ '%$°/ p-"' ..^1"'-^'' ^' .?" >' -V.. -^ State of Chhattisgarh : Through Secretary, Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) / ~ ' ' 2. Deputy Director, Panchayat 8s Social Welfare, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 3'. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Patan, Head Office Durg, Disti-ict-Durg (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Patan, District-Durg (C.G.) <-' 5. District Auditor, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ^ 6. Panchayat Avam Samaj Shiksha Sangathak, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) Deputy Auditor, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 8. Sint. Roktima Yadav, Sub- Divisional Officer, Patan Head Office, District-Durg (C.G.) 9. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Gudhiyari, Tahsil-Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) 1*^ 10. Grarn Panchayat Gudhiyari, through the Secretary, Tahsil- Patan, District-Durg (C.G.) WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -n—! HIGH COITRT OP CHHATTJSGARH AT BTIASPIJK WMT PETITIQN •'C's No,6190<rf2011 PETmON. RESPONDENTS f^eeiam j^aiisuiai ^nsai v te ofChhattisearh & Oihers WIUT FE'ITTION UNDER ART1CLE 2260F THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA i3aiil3'LS 1, Present: Shri Prateek Shanna. Advocate for She c'etitioner. S.OTI M.F.^.rsli3.ua, Ucpuly tjovsmnisioi Auvocdls; ibt y;i^ ^iiilc/ B-esooadent No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 1. ' Sliri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advouals with Sml. Mssra Jaiswal, Advocate for the Caveator — Anuo Chaadrakar. OR (Passed oa 08" day ofNovember, 2011) 1. Challenee in this Detition is to the show ca.use "otiee dated 21.09.2011 i''Aimexiire P/l') issued bv the Sub Divisionai Officer. Patan. Dure. wherebv the Tiet.itioaer has been askcd to sfaow ca.use a.-!t.o whv shs should iiot be removed from the nost of Samanch. Gira.m Panchavai Gudihivari. a.fter takins action under the orovi.sioss of sectioa 40 of the Paacha.va.t Rai Adhimvani. 1993 (fbr short 'the Adhiriivci.m. 1993'). 2. Shri Sharma, learaed counsel appeanng for the pctitioner submits that the imDUgned show ca.use notice dated 21.09.2011 ('Amiexisre p/l't has been issued without holdhig a proper eriquiry as Tequired under 'the nrovisioas ofsection 88 oftlie Adhinivam. 1993. 3. . - Accordiiis to Shri Sha.nna. secfion 88 ofthe Adhiaivam. 1993 deais with enquiry into the affairs of Panchayat wherein tlie State Govsniinent. m^v caiiss ^-n eneiiiirv Mit.o the a.etivitics ofl a.nv CTra.m Pa.nchavat on HiaUers coiiceming it or to anv mattfir with resueet 'to which tne sanct.ion, aF<proval, consent or order of thc State ,•;- ;l-se» -<^ w ^^•...•"•;.:'-~L -.^'.•y <S) Govemmeat is reauired bv or uader this Act. Sectioa 88 nf the Adhinivaiii. 1993 was amended bv Act LN'o. 9 of 2004 which caine into fbrce m.e.f. 03.08.2004. wherein a. proviso has been added fhat Ihe Coliecior mav cause an enauirv into the activ'ities of anv Gram Pa.ncha.vat condiict.ed bv aiiv Qfilcer not helQW class II, 4. In tho case on hand. the enauin' was condiicted bv District Auditor. Pancha.yat and Social Education Organizor and Deputy A.uditor, Disrtrict Diirs. Aecordins to Shri shaniia. thev are not the class II ofncsrs. birt bclow eis.ss II offieers. T'hiis.. tlic nrc-condition of issiiius notice usder seciion 40 ofthe Adhinivam. 1993 has aot been satisfied as this encsujr\r c9..nn.c?t. be held a.? enciuir'.'' as cosit.em?latsd imder section 88 oftiie Act.. 1993. 5. In view of that, Shri Bhatia. leamed counsel aDDearins for thc State/respondent No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. submits that ths issue raised bv the Detitiosser rcauires coi'sideration. and a.s s-uch- direetioii mav be ma.de fo the St-ate/authorities to decide the issuc raised bv the netitioiier fir-st. and thereafl'.er. a.ft.eF ^flbidin^ opnoft.iAnitv of hea.riiis. as coi'it^ninl^ted i.md§r seetion 40 before. aDDroDriate order mav be DHSSSQi 6. in view ofthe a.bove, the Sub Divisionai OfEcer. pateu. Diatrict Durs is; direeted to exa?niae the issue asto whether the enauin' committee was properiy constiiuted as reqiiired under secfion 88 of tlie Adhiniva.m. 1993 and take decisioii ttiereafter, The Detitioner is at </ •• ..-...---.------——- ^. libert.v to raise all other i.ssues also. if so advised, In the event. it is tbusid tlis.t enii'iiifv' eoi'niiiitt.es WR.S constittitcd Drc'Derlv, the Dctiiioner shall b§graiit.ed two wec;ks tirae to file resnonse to ihe imr'ust.ed show caiise notice and thereafi.er. aDorooriate order mav be nassed. m accoi'dance with law oa its own merits and DersDcctive, In view ofthe above. the writ oetition is disoosed ofwith the aforesa.id Qbservation and direction. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNMOM Judge