$§N$LE gmw 4/@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION NO. [acaQéJ OF .2006 PETITIONER: /‘GOVind Singh, S/o Shri Shishupal Singh, Aged about 34 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Amaldiha, Tah. Katghora, Janpad Panchayat Podi Uproda, Distt Korba (Chhattisgarh) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). Director, Panchayat, ‘State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, District Korba (C.G.) s.D.'0. (Revenue) Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI—HC-78 o WW,W,W W9 Na. fmzg/Qooé WW a1 200 WWW WWW mmwwéw mm (W) 'WwffwmA éxwm 6—‘1 1—20136 Shri HS. Patel” Advocate 1'31‘ the petitioner. Shri NK Agrawai, Dy. Ad Jocate Genera‘l for the State. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226x227 of the Cotistitution of India against the order dated 18-10-2006 Annemre P-i by which Coiieetor Korba has vacated the stay order granted by Additionai Coiiector, Kerba dated 6u'7r’2006 in an appeai preferred by the petitioner against his removal under Seetior 40(1) of the Chhattisgarh Fanehayat Rah Adhiniyam, 1993. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that order impugned has been passed Without there being!‘ any application for the same hy the respondent after the record was received from the the of Additionai Coiieetor, Korba by Coiiector Korba. He fuither submits that the petitioner is eiected Sarpanch. He has been arbitrari lremoved from his post by colourable exercise of power under Section 4 (i) ofthe ?anchayat Ra] Adhiniyam, 1993 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to that extent order of removai is contra y’to 121w, and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order eimexure P-i deserves to be quashed. From perusal of the order Annemre F—S, it is seen that the order dated 22-3-2006 of the Sub Divisi nai Ohicer, Katghora was stayed by the appeiiate authority untii further or ‘ers. However, the appellate authority by the impugned order after going thro lgh the order ofthe Sub Divisional Ot‘ticer has vacated stay order after going tl rough the order of removal with a finding that the continuance of the petition r is not desirable in public interest. It is l y f XI-HC-78 ‘ . wig; N0: Wm saw,mfiw,%amg( .>.é.@.Qé Wm (W) @ 4ooé 200 WWW wmm mwm 2 mwewm éawm nottthe case OI the petltioner thatt 01“ [115 smile 1S D€y011d }UI‘1S(11€UOI Contfal‘V t0 311V Siatutorv DI‘OViSlol COUITIS OI C011Sldel‘ed Oplmon {hm impugned order under Article ’22'7 deserves to be cusmlssed m adimss However, the appellate aut grexerred by the petltioner expm months after nearing the partle's. The petition is accordingiv c ne above order has been passed malahdelv l ot the appellate authoritv or the same is l. i116 aDDeal pl‘efél‘red DV the 3D136112L111; 18 stlu- pending before the appellate amthority. ln the aforesaid circumstances, this 1’10 caSe 1S filadé 011i IOI‘ InterterenCe 11’1 U16 of the Constitution of India and the petition 011 Stage. ilOI‘ltV ls dlreCted t0 dlSDOSB OI the apvéai titiouslv preterablv Within a penod of 3 impose-d 01. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra i Judge P.T.O.