@2 A FK H13 LUM?‘ @i< £HhA‘i‘E ig AR? A} g‘LLféfLi it airmn 227) 4M a‘i PETI'HGNER : A S/L, Qaxmr‘mm 1a Aadm PJL KGfrahl helm} Weldminawai Dmrict bulgug ‘) mJwlrm'z Ixasiwma Q/c dmm. R/o Pvidur‘ 1mm ‘y/dr‘umcwar Dmtnct suxgmMCG) ET FE'ETHON UNDER ARTlCUi 227 Ui 1h]; vuNt: 1 II CT‘ION OF i’NDIA) M 15$: LL03 Me Ar. Saiish K Agmiiieti'i. {i} Kh x ?zesem " ’‘ : o3 ndresh Shrivasta’va. Advo re fol me pe oner u n ‘11“ ’3 S Radmwaha erutv Jkfivewfé Gereia i‘ox‘tue §tv$e ma Mamcu havocaw m} me respmdem No gmh QwER \Fawed 0:2 gm aw; . sf Daemka‘ ‘fm Auii x? [aiiav azy‘i rmmi , wi3~‘“:%w £11: awaa; med bV m, respondem 4 1mg 0:361} miewed aim me 0*de1 pawed by me i0 ector on 26.06.2006 With iiie conssnt ofthe pames, 1316 mattai‘ is iaken up for hearing iEnaHy. ChaHenge in ihis peiiuoa x to iha order daies‘i 13.862CEU8 (’Aimewre-P/é) passed m the Dire 1. Laxrmyat 1n base V . 9/01 (18 viiay iaaav ‘v 3 y j \o (Amemu PIN iias mean S6: asida 5;x ma mdispuagie in 1 1a 1‘1 $s § as prajected by the pe-zjtioner, am tizat the resioonds t 1\0 4 was ciectea dauguu wmbei‘ ii‘om the Constituency N0. 31 of Eaupad Fanchayai, Wadi‘afnagar. ”Effie: petitimler alongwiih respanéexl: N0, ‘5 made a compiaint’ against the regpemiem No. 4 on 3502.05 hafore the I m E9§3 (fbr short “me Aw; 1993”), statmg that the ’1 regg>on§€z1t N94 is having {tame smite“ mti the thud chx d was ‘mm Why mt may of aaiiuatV wm Le. on 29 disquaiitiac t3 h QBLJO“ JO Ki) (m3 01 ‘H‘e Am. ICJ3, " J t Coitector timer Ssctien 36 ( (i m Swxm‘aj A€i__ he ifhhattisgarh L z‘y'at Raj Avam t ‘ r A115, me) tamoactm x\o 4 1Q I um utiitér the provisions of t Wr x0. 3 iwiS J ‘7 m .u ' (W 4 V 1 oii m wawd Xddaa abaut 3U “(HQ Anwimt f ‘ lxwam, / admxflma: J1<mct Eulmm (CG) V£3§EL§§ gEhBGMi§L\IE9 bane 01 L mdmovam m uwh Seammua Pamhayai, Eng P‘ rm, Mantlamvd Ralf) u (CG) 2. um actor 1’ mnaym Dixh Emu/an. . Mantraiaxa Aaipai {CG} 3‘ Lol euier. @ dr a b} . he ciector, afier having consiered the facts an‘ circumsancs ofhe case, and aiier conducting enqui, aquai‘:§ed {he sporment No. 4 on 26.06.06 wrmre i, holiing ihat the third chiid was born 0n 29.G1.04 is. aiier 26.01.01 anti as such the respondem No; 4 was daclared as éisquaiified. ~r f Being aggrieved, ihe petiiioner preerreci a revision before the Director, Panchay. The Erector, Fanc’iaaya‘z, Vide his order dated 31.10.2096 mexure F/Z) se asiée 1iie order dated 26.06.06 passed by the Coilecéor ané remanée back e same to the court beow for heari11g afresh after fording p epv . Being agg‘ieved, he petitioner arzd responrient N0. 5 prerred an appeal before the Secretary. Govt. oChhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rural Deveiopment Department being case No. 226/A’ya./?an./O5—06. The cretary, after rar d .0 ) upoiding he oriier dateti 3i.1.6, passec’i by the Director, Panciiayat. Thereafter the Ceilector, aer having constriered all aspects ofthe matter and hearing both e parties, came to conclusion that two chiidren of the rsp 4 w (A i d th i af proer oor’mnit ofheari‘ng ”Lo the petitioner. D t fe r‘ N Se eing aii the parties, rejecte the application on 191.07 (Annexure PB h t (}0 Q\ eondent No. ere born after 26.01.01, on 11.01.03 and 29.01.2004 and as such he resondent o. 4 is not e‘iigibie to hoid any oce of he ?anchayat under Section 361)m) othe Ac 1993. Accordingly, the responeent No. 4 was removed from the office of Janpad Member, Ward No. 11, Janpad Fanchayat, VJadratiiagar, by orcier oated 1.03.2008 (Annemre 13/4). . Furthe being aggrieve the responden No. 4 prerreti an appeai before the recor, Panchayat. The Director Panchayat, aer having consiciered aii aspects or the matter, came to the conclusion that the cisquahcation, as prescribed untier Section 36 )(m) from the Act, 1993 has been omitted w.e.f. 23.05.2008. Thus, the order passeé y the Collector was set asie and appeai was aiioweci. u this petition. Ths. 8. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the peitione would submit at the Director Panchayat, without appreciating the act that the second and third children ofthe responden No. were born atter 26 th day of January, 001 Le. on 11.01.03 and 29.01.2004, has ahowed e appeal ofhe responéent o. tr. th f t 4 2 th t N L1, an<i as such the same is not sustainable in 1aw. 9. Shri Shrivastava further submits that this very issue came into consideration before a Single Judge of this Court. The Single Jucige, in the matter of Mahendra Buciek Vs. State of Chiiattisgarh & Others (WP. (227) No. 3 106/08}. after having consioeree hero“ as unde‘ : T Ci d d te t ry di i'e (Am E’) l ai , ft th t p N fti t (( r‘ t. 1 i r. d. t re ‘ it rt tti (1 b d 10. it is W611 settied principles of law ihai ths subsequent even: iakmg place or change in 121W during the pendency 03" appeai cannoi be iooked into at the appellate stage, even if the law has ceaSed to b6 a good law by amendment. 19. Appiying tha wel’i settled principles of law to the etfeet of £11 e‘aactmeizt maue by legielature, it is clear tum 1,. 4. the gyrovisierrs wordd be prespeetive. In {an facts e; the case, 110 sucii intention has been expressed in the Amendment Act, ZQOS. Thus, the disquaEftcation eamed earlier cannot be cured or validated by‘ the subsequent anaentlment Le, ;%11e11dm011t Act, 2008" 10.?‘er contra, learner} counsel appearing for the respondents supporteé the lmpugneé orcier. k“. [a- .in the matter oi‘Laxman Prasad jangde Vs. State ot‘CG. and Others (WP. (C) 1‘40. 3027/(3‘8), this Court, relymg on iuégment and order ofthis Court elated 11.68.2008 passed in the matter of lvl'ahenéra Budek (Supra), allowed the petition, 1‘2.Against the said order, a writ appeal being No. 220/08 was filed The writ appeal was also clisniisseé, upholding the judgment and order passed by the Singie Judge: xn 1e judgment and order dated 11.08.2008 passed in the matter of Maliendra Budek ( Supra). i4.The Supreme Court, thereafter. in the matter of? Kaliamuthi and another V's. Five Geri Thaikkai Wakf and Othersl has held thit "where the right of suit is barred under the law of limitation in force before the new provision came into operation and a vested right has accrued to another, the new provision cannot revive the barred right or take away the accrued vested right. "‘ 13. As a result, and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is aiiowed. The impugned order dated 13.66.2008 (Armexure P/o), passed by the Director, Fanchavat in Appeal Case No. i23/A—89/07—08 (Ajay Yadav Vs. Abhishek Yaclav and Another) is set aside and the order dated 11.03.08 (Annexure P/4), passed by the Coilector, 3urguia, in Panchayat Case No. 9/3-121/0‘4-05 is restored. i\o order asto costs. Sahu uniess contrary iritemion is shewn, the appiicabiiity of 1 1 ¢ g‘ 1 (was) 9 soc 306 1:7.Tirus, having regard to facts situation of the ease, this petition is squareiy covered bv .‘Satjsh KfK JUdge gnihotn‘ \