INTH^; HIGILCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASAPUR WRIT PN'ITON_NO^S<s^72005 Tilak Ram S/o- Juthan Ram Aged about 40 years, Panch of Village Panchayat Block- Kunkuri Distt- Jashpur (C.G.) 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Jashpur Distt- Jashpur (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer Kunkuri Distt- Jashpur (C.G.) Elisaba Kerketta D/o- Jitia Kerketta Aged about 45 years Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Ghatmunda Block Kunkuri Distt- Jaspur (C.G.) WRIT^ETITQN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. llilllii! l.ittSl^SR Ifr^Jj' HIQH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTSSQARH: BIUt.SPUR SINOLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ WRIT PETITION N0.5505 QF 2QOS Tilak Ram Versus -State' of Chhattisgarh and others. Present Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counse! for Uie petitioner. Mr. N.K. ^rawal, Dy. A.G., wittt Mr. Sandeep Dubey, teamed G.A., for ihe Siate of Chhatiisgarh. ORAL ORDER (Passsdon21 Movesnb&r 2QQ5) The fo'tewing Order of ttie Gourt was passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ: - Ths writ petitioner is a Panch of viltege Panchayat Ghatmunda. The fourth respondent is an elected Sar^nch of the same Panchayat. 2. The petitioner leveHing certain all^at-ons against fourth respondsnt has sought for a direction to the C-ollector, Jashpur, district Jashpur and Sub Diyisional Officer, Kunkuri, district Jashpur, i.e. respondents 2 and 3 respecth/ely herein to teke acfion against the fourth respondent under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'ffie Adhiniyam'). The abo'/e relief is sought on the basis ofthe averments made in paragraphs 5.2,5.3,5.4 and 5.5 offte petih'on and they read as follows: '•2- "5.2 That Respondent no.4 has been eleoted in the month of Deoember 2004 for the period of s years. Since the date of taking charge of Sarpanch Respondent no.3 has no interest in disoharge of the duties imposed upon her as a Sarpanoh on the contrary she is involved In al! kind of corruption and misuse of the power and government monev. 5.3 That, the several deyetopmert work and the work relating to the Gram Papchayat !ike Indira Awas Yqjna, Midday meal, Sulabh Shauchatay Constnjction, small bridge (Pulia Constructjon) are suppose to be done by the Sarpanoh but she has not interest and concern re.qarciing these vmrk. All the times the amount sanctioned for these devetopment ^fm^k8 are being wjthdrawn by the Sarpanch but that amount is being used up for her personal use and if some worR done is shown that is fbr name sake or the quatity is not upto the mark or they are of very poor quality beoause she is taking commission from the contractor as a resuft poor quality work is being done. 5.4 That it is pertinent to mention here that she was elected Sarpanch of last tenure and she has again been elected for thls term also theretbre, she is very negfigent regardirg her duties. 5.5 That since Respondent no.4 has utteriy failed to discharge her duties villagers started maktng oomplaints against her before the ooncem authorities.' 3. !t is trite that the allegations made in the aforementioned paragraphs are as vagus as they couk! be and they are incQmprehensh/e. The deteite ars utterly lacking. Be that as it may, if ttie fourth respondent •s guilfy of misconduct in discharging the duties and functions attached to her office and corrupt practices stated in ths petffion, if fte peBtioner so desires, he could gamer necessary support from ofher Panchas and unseat e fourth respondent from ttie post held by her by resoiting to the procedure contemplatsd under Sections 21 and/or 21-A efthe Adhiniyam. nl Panchayat is a mini poliSca! institutio" and it contsmptates a mini democracy. !t is fair and just that the elected ofRce bearers should be shown the way by the elected members themsehyes. tt is not to say that this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution "f India cannot step-in and correct the misdeeds of an elected office bearer of a !oca! body. Thte Court undoubted!y m appropriate case cou'd step-in and correct misdeeds of an slscted ofRce bearer of a !oca! body but sparing'y and only in a cass whsre aitemative effecfive mode of unseating the ofRce bsarer te not found in the statute or whsre the elected offlce bearer is found to havs blatantly violated fhe public law requiremerrts. This is not one such cass whsre I am indined to step-in under ArUcte 226 of the ConsUtution of !ndia. In that view of the mattsr, the wrft pefflion is dismissed. However, this order shall not come in the way ofthe pefitionsr with the co-operatiQR "f the othsr Panchas of the village Panchayat Ghatmunda to iwrk out the procedure enwsaged either under Section 21 or under SecBon 21-A of the Adhiniyam. Further, it is also made clear that this order would not in any way influence the proceedings initiated against the fourth respondent under SecUon 40 of the Adhiniyam whsch •s said to be pending before respondent No.3. Sd/- Chief Justice