(-A INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION f2271 NO.LfOOOOF 2011 PETITIONER : o^^cr^o^, .<t "^ ?^^.. .•••^'^c.'''" .'• Cjy'~j...:-','^-"'s ...••"" <^%v^ Khiru Ram, S/0 Late Shri Punit Ram, Aged about 50 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o. Village- Surta, Tehsil- Ramanujnagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS ^''..A.-- 1 ^-" RESPONDENTS : ^(1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, District- Sarguja (C.G.) (2) Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) (3) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Ramanujnagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ^fmW^ ^liW Dhan Kunwar, W/o. Shri Hemchand, Aged About- 25 Years, (Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat- Surta), R/o. Village- Surta, Tehsil- Ramanujnagar, District- Sarguja (C.G) Q^ WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA Hl '^^T'-'l^^?* ^ "'yt^lS^''v-s»^ i.r; VA^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON C227) No. 4UOO of2011 PETmONER OBJECTIONER RESPONDENT8 KhiruRam. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Otfaers. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSITTUnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri. J. Present: Stari Sarfarz Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Anm Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No.land2. OKDER(ORAL) (Passed on 26U1 dayofJuly, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.06.2011 (Amiexure P/l) passed by the Collector, Surguja, whereby fhe appointment ofthe oflBciating Saq)anch at Gram Panchayat Surta, Janpad Panchayat Ramanunjnagar, has been stayed. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 (Amiexure P/l) is arbitrary and illegal as without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, the respondent No. 1 has stayed the appointment of ofBciating Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat, Surta due to which the petitioner is sufFering and is not able to avail the benefit of Indira Awas Yojna. There are serious allegations against the respondent No. 4 with regard to economic oflfence and embezzlement of govemment fiind, thus, it was not justified to stay the appointment ofofBciating Sarpanch. 3. Since the appeal of the respondent No. 4 is pending before fhe CoBector, Surguja, and it in the instant case, disputed question of facts are involved which can be resolved by the airthorities below, at this stage, no interference is wan-anted. Even ofherwise, in Ifae case on hand, no jurisdictional error, mfumity or irregularity has been pomted out. Thus, this Court, in exereise of its power under Article 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. ^: s 2 6. The Supreme Court, in AbduS Razak (D) Thr. LJis. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others^, observed as under: 21...There have been several other instances in which different High Courts havepassed orders in exercise ofrxwer underArticles 226 or 227 of tke Constitution oflndia disregarding the limitations identifted and indicated by this Court in several decisions on the exercise of that pcwer. We hope and trust that in fitture theHigh Courts •wouldkeep in w'ew the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction/ supervisory jurisdiction and refrain from dwiding the writ petitions flled under Article 226 or petitwns/applications filed under Article 227 ofthe Constitution as if they are adjudicating appeals filed against the orders ofthe lowercourts or other j'udicial/qttasi-j'udicial bodies/authorities." The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyam Shetty &Another v. Rwendra Shankar Patif. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a fresh application before the authority where the appeal is pending to consider his objection and Ihereafter, the authority may pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, on its own merits and perspective. Sd/- \ ' SATISH K. ANGNMORI , Judge