PETITIONER : f IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH (5‘31? WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2006 Smt. Badrika Bai, W/o Krishnaram Kaushik, Aged about 55 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kathod, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). Vsrsus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Social Welfare, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Collector, Janjgir-Charnpa (CG). Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), angir, District Janjgir—Champa 'J (CG). Shankar Lal, Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Khod, District Janjgir—Champa (CG). / 3 ‘’ \ ‘\raN. ‘ m v W... at W T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226/l24OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI—HC-78 WW ‘ mké3l3. .0.Q.. In 200' WmQEW) WWW wmm WW§WM WWW éawm ‘/ ., .passed by the Panchayat is appcll 21. 11.2006: Shti B.D. Guru counsel for e p6titioner. a Smt. Anju Ahuja Dy. GA for thc respondents. Heard. By the instant petition th petitioner who is the Satpanch of Gram Panchayat Kathod District Janjg'r (Rwenue) in case No. 01/2006-07 hereby entertaining the appeal of respondent Gram Pmchayat/Gram Sabha has passed the impugned various orders passed by SDO No.4 against the order of removal stay order of Annexure P-l. Learned counsel for the pet 'oner submits that the above order is in direct contravention of the circular dated 26.11.2002 of Annexure P-S whereby all the Collectors of the State of revision against the resolution of am Panchayat or Gram Sabha with respect to removal of Panchat Karmi horn th post ,shall not be in accordance with the rules and despite the said circular the SDO (Revenue) has taken cognizance of e appeal preferred by the respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the pe ' 'oner does not dispute that as per Rule 3(d) of The Madhya Pradesh Panchayats ppeal and Revision) Rules 1995, the order ‘ before the SDO. ' garh have been advised that any appeal or as there is no provision for the Taking into consideration fact that the appeal is pending before the SDO, the instant petition is dispos d ofvwith liberty to the petitioner to raise the dispute which has been raised in decide the same in aecordance with law. petition, before the SDO itself who shall Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra ' } Judge C e A e e 's