IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pefmon (5) No.555 /2009 gmggg @wmh Petitioner Tikelal Sahu S/o Prabhu Lal Sahu, aged about 34 years, Occupafion— Secretary, Gram Panchayaf, Kha‘H‘i, Tahsil-Bagbahar'a, Disfricfj Mahsaamund (CG) / ' / 7‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON$TITUTION OF INDIA f/ Versus./ f . Respondents 1. State of ChhattiSgar‘h through the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, f D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Mahasamund, District I Mahasamund (CG) X 4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Khatti, Tahsil—Bagbahara, District— Mahasamund (CG) RESPONBENTgg mGr? CGURT GF CHHAT?§SGARH : 8§LA$§3UR . , TCiN iTi C. $ GF 280»? Tikeiai $ahu Versus Siate of Chha‘rtfsgarh & Others Singie 8enc§1 : Hermie Shri Sai§sh K Agnihofri a Fiesem :— 3M Awadh Trimihi, Advocate for the peiiiiorrer. ovemmeni Advocate for the $iaie. .r (Passed on this 1.4:“ day of September, 201 1) “x. By ihis pet§iiam ihe pei§iioner seeks to cha§ienge the iegaiity and vaiidity of Qanchayat, Chha%§§sgarh, m Appeai Case No.250IAB9fO7D8, Deputy Dfrecw, Panchayst é; Soda? We§fare, Mahasamund, has been The brief facts, in nutsheii, es projected by the petitioner are that the wwkim as Panshayat Karmi: he was dedared as Panchayat Secretary by omier dated 36,022w8 (Annexure P~2). in the meantime, the petitioner was maimed frem iine pesi 0f Panchaya? Karmi. Smce, the petitfcner was shri Amn Saa, G $79 omier dafeci 63.11 2638 (Annexwe P4) passed by the Direciar, dated 4x41332983 (Annexure P-é), passed by the whereunder, the order {\J removed from the eubs‘zantive gas? 0f Pamhayai Karmi, fhus, his deoiaration under Section 6§(i) of the Panohayat Raj Adhiniyam, 19%, as $ecg’eiary', has ai'se been wiihdzewn v§de order dated 14.Q3.2008 {Amexure P4). to the removai of the petitioner from the post of Pencheyat Karmi, tnu’s, cneiienge to canceiiation of deciaranon on the 3. There is no chaiienge pee? cf Panchayat Sec censrdered arr the issu rerary dees mi survive. The Directcr has righi§y es and came re the conciusion that for want of ehaiienge to removal frem i‘he post of Panchayai Karmi, the subsequent order camo‘r be chaiienged, as the order deciaring the petitioner as :L‘ahchaya‘i Secrerew was passed on the basis of the faci that he was working as Penohayat Karmi. rims, there is no infirmiiy or iiiegeiity in the impugneo’ orcter deters; 2 Aoooro‘ingiyr the writ pet é‘a.: asiwk 7.98.201 ’i. {“rfrr‘rit 9etit§on under Artioie 226 of the Constitution of indie) ooor’irmeo and the appeai has been dismissed. itiori is citsmissed/ sdi— WW 9E N 55 $3 ./ . h