^ ,XI-HC—78 S^V W k'f\* ^an sn^T^Tit^ L.-"~ ~SS[ "4|<<|c|.4, ®ifl1<l<|(o,^diyy WWlT'arHlcfa 311^1 'q'RT ('^?f3^ll) TRlRiT Wf^T •itI^W HiOH COURT OF CtiHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitioh (C) No.6522 of 2< (Writ Petition under Arti^le 226 of the Constitution of India) Chht Khutnan ^trapal Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Singh, Tanwar (S.T.), resident of Village Majt^gawan, Gram Panchayat F^lahora, tehsil- Mar^'ahi, district-Bilaspur (CG) RESPONDENTS 2. 3. 4 Sta^ Pan| Dir^ Adc!|tiona! Coilector, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (c.q Vija'] DHiRENORA MiSHRA. J. Shri Somnath Verma, coi| Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Shri Prakash Mishra, Ad^ocate Heard. This petitlon is directed 3.10.2007 passed by the Direc<< appeal preferred by the petition^r Pendraroad of annexure P-2, d4' 173/B-121/2006^7 has been jurisdiction to hear the appeai. 4ti:t)i(Ti"<fl'i ^i^df ^f TW^ ^.^T^R ^aifinsn^i p of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, chayat department, Raipur (C.G.) ptor, Panchayat Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) ••) f Bahadur, aged 50 yeare, son of Jagannath, of Pendra, tehsi! Pendraroad, district resi<|lent Bita^pur (CG) QXAL ORDER jinsel for the petitioner. Mvocate for the State. for respondent No.4. ^igainst the order of Annexure P-1 , dated <or, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, wherebythe n^r against the order of Additional Collector, ^ted 17 8.2007 passed in revenue case no. r^jected with an observation that he has no XI-HC—78 -?s? "41'41d-4, ^fll'y'Ko, f^IWp: 3n^?[ w Fi-ii'* '?TSTT-3H^T stii4icb 3T1^TTR?? ( yi'l'5!^) wtiw^fta aii^i - z- Learned counsel for th^ etected Sarpanch of Gram PajichayaS- Mahora. The Additionai Coiiector, Pendraroad vide order of Ann post of Sarpach under SecUon (for short 'Act of 1993') with ^ finding that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Caste category. The petition^r was afforded severai opportunities to produce document to estabii| category. However, he coui^ circumstance the compliant of] and the Chief Executive Office^ to take action in accordance w| against the petitioner and in removed from the post of Sarp^ Learned counsel for thf Section 36 of the Act of 199^ order of Coliector passed und^ Director, Panchayat. in view of sub-section Panchayat thai ne has no JL< thc Director, Panchayat.whol petitioner on merit after affordirfl ^l*llfl<fr'l 'tHT^Tf ^f "fe^ <^l-^.i< ^aifiiqaflt^l petitioner submte that the pet'rtioner was sxure P-2 removed the petitioner from the 36 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 Uahora, which was reser/ed for Scheduled >h that he belongs to Scheduled Caste not produce any document. Sn these the respondent No.4 was held to be valid , Janpad Panchayat, Manvahi was directed th !aw under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam consequence thereof, the petitioner was inch. i petitioner submits that sub-section 4 of provides that a person aggrieved by the r Section 36, may prefer appeat before the of Section 36,the order of the Director, risdictlon to hear the appea! can not be sustained. Accordingly, (hesarlie is set aside and She matter is remltted to shai! decide the appeai preferred by the opportunity of hearing to the parties. j!L-^L Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge