-1- HI6H <OWT OF CHHATnSS^RH AT ®Jl5B® ^^ W^^ Petition fCl . 1682 of 2007 Pctttioner Verais Rttocndentt Thagan Bai, wife of Bhaurani Nirmalkor, aged about- 50 yeafS,resident of 6nnn Panchdyat Nagdha Vikas Khand Nc—agarh,EMatrict- 6wy(C.G.) 1. State of ChhattiS9arh, through Panchoyat nnd Rural Oevelopment Department, &.K.S. BhoNfan, Raipur, &istrict-Raipur ,(C.6.) 2. District Panchayat Dupg, Throigh its Chlef &<ecutive Offlcer, t>urg, District-Dyrg(C.©.) 3. Additionol Collector, Bemetonl, trtstrict- Ourg (C.6.) 4.5ub Oivteional Officer (Revenue) Bemetnra, Nstrict- Durg (C^.) 5. Santo^ 7hakur,Up-StTponch,6rgm Ptmeha/at Nagdha, t>i!»trict- burg 6. Statton Nbuse Officer, Police Stntlon - Atow C>l3trict'- Dwg (C.6.) Single Bcnch: Honbte Mr. jurttee SatiA K. styiihelri: Preacnt: Mr. Sunit Schu, Advocotc for the pctitnner. Mr. Satish ©upta,Dcputy fiovernment Advocate for ttie State/rcspondents No. 1,3,4 and 6. OR&Eft ^^^as^ on IOMI Day of April, 2007) 1. 'Tlie petitioner, by this petition, impugns the validity, legaliiy of the order dated 28.Z.^307 (Anncxure P-5) passed by theAdditional Coliector, Bemeta'ain feference under Section 2l(4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchoyat R<y Avoni 6r<nii Swarcu Adhiniymn, 1993 (hereimrfter refeiTed to aa 'the Acihlniyatn, 1993') in case No. 2A/89/20Q6-07. TheAdtCtional &llectar, Bemetord has dismissed the reference on the ground of delay. -2- 2. Section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam. 1993 provides for a reference of dispute to the Collector whereunder it is clearly provided that the reference is to be mode within 7 days from the date on which such motfon wos carried and the Collector is also under an allegation to decide the s<me as far as possible, within thirty days from •the dote on which it was received by him. 3. Section 21(4) of the Adhiniycm, 1993 read as under:- "t(4) if the S<rpanch or the Upsa'panch, as the case may be. desirea to chaltenge the validity of the motion corried out wider sub-section (1), he Aall, within seven dcys from the dote on which such motion was carried, refer ttie dispute to the Collectw who shall decide it, as fca' as possible. within thirty days from •the3afe,] on which it mas received by him, and his decision shall be final.]" 3. There 'is no proviaion for condonflrt'ion of delay. It appears thot the interrt-ion of the legislature is very cleor that in cose, where the elected SarpanchA/p-sarpanch hcs lost confidence of the membera of panchcyat. The Sot'ponch/Up-Sarpanch against »»hommotion of no corrfidence has been carried-out, should not keep it pending for long period in a democrotic set- up. It is necesscry to elect theSarpanch as earty as possible. Entertaining this petition after delfly of 32 d<ys would defeat the very ~f fixing the time limit for making on applicotion and further for adjudicotion of the dispute. 4. In the present cose, it is the case of the petitioner that the application was filed after 39 days from the dateon which no confidence motion was car-ried-out. The Additional Collector, Bemetara has rightly rejected the said application on the ground of delay as permitting the petitioner to file an application after a period of 39 days would defeat the very purpose of -3- reference of dispute to the Collector under Scction 21(4) of ttie Adhiniyam, 1993. There is no infirmity. iltegality CBKI irvegulority in the order to cal! for indulgence of thia Coirt in its extro-ordinory jurisdiction. AccoKlingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Jiaige^ ^. V'SS> ,_;L-.-.l—-- StAhwh