@ Him-i COUm‘ OF CHHA'ETESGARH AT BxLASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 4746 of 2008 & PETETIONER Jypemmi‘ Pram Prakash Banjare, aged about 40 years, S/a Shri Gaverdhan Banjare, R/o viElage and Post Girhola, Tahsxi Dhamdha, Djstt. Durg. VERSBS ‘ The State of Chhatftisgark through Secretary, Panchayat Deyartmam, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. Director, Panchayat, Raipur, Additionai Collector, Durg. Sub Divisiona1 Ofticer (Revenue), Distt. Durg. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Girhota, Distt. Durg. 6. Pawan Kumar Banjare, aged ahout 38 years, S/o Limukda, Gram Panchayat, Girhoia, Block Dhamdha7 Distt Durg. ( WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2‘6 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hall’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Parag Kotec‘ha) Advocate for the potitioner. Shri A'iok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4. ‘ ESPONDENQ “9P’N: Ms. Sharmiia Singhai, Advocate for the respoudent No. 6. mm. GRMR (reassee on 29¢ day 0r Augast, 2908) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing tinally. 2. Learned counsel appearing fer the petitioner submits that the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpaneh of Gram Panchayat Girhola, without foiiowing due process of law, under the provisions of Section 40 ofPanchayat Raj Adhioiyam, 1993 (tor short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993). f/i \¥ The matter was taken to this Court in W.P.(C) N0. 944/08, whereby, this Court granted stay Ofthe operatien of the ordar dated 23.01.2008 (Ammxure P/2). However, it was made clear that the presem'bed authority may complete the proceedings at the earliest. Shri Kotecha submits that white completing the proceedings, the pi‘eserihed authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (for short ‘SDO’) (Revenue), Distiicu Burg, has completely ignored the provisions of law. Being aggrieved; the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Durg. The Collector, Durg, by order dated 04.08.08 (Annexure P/5), while admitting the appeal, declineri to grant stay in favour of the petitioner. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Director Panchayat on 08.08.08 (Annexure P/6). The Director, Panchayat declined to entertain the revision on the ground that the earlier proceedings is pending consideration in this Court in W.P.(C) No. 944/08. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 submits that the Director, Panchayat may be directed to entertain and consider the revision ofthe petitioner, in accordance with law, and she has no objection for the same. Shri Bakhshi, learned counselifor the State/respondent No. l to 4 has also made the similar submission. ln view ofthe foregoing, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the Director, Panchayat, is directed to entertain the -3 “ @ revision, flied by the petitioner, and d‘ecid‘e the same, in accordance with law on its own merits. 9. With the abovc observatioa, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. 10. In View ofthe abova, LA. No, 0!, application for grant of‘interim relief aiso stands disposed of. xix: ~ Sd/' Ii Sa tish K. Agnihotri/ Judge //