"a^ 3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WritPetitionIClNo, 3293 of 2009 Petitioner Revisioner Shaxiti Bai, W/o Naad Kum.ar Sonkar, aged about 58 years, R/o Village Thakurikapa Barela, Tahsit Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Uttara Bai, Sarpanch, Graia Paachayat Thakiuikapa, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli District Bflaspur (C.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), MungeU, District Bilaspur (C.G.) The Additional CoUector, Bilaspur, Disti-ict Bflaspur(C.G.) applicants 9.. 3. WRIT_PBTITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OPTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) SIui M. K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioiier. Shri Vivek Sharma, Paael Lawyer for ftie respondents No. 2 & 3. ORDBRtOraIS (Passed on fhis 30*h dayofJuly, 2009) The petitioner, by fhis petition, seeks to cliatlenge the validity and legality of fhe impugned order dated 4.7.2009 (Aiuiexure P/2), passed by fhe Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Revision Case No. 218/A-89/08-09. Brief facts, ia nutsheU, are fhat the respondeut No.l was Sarpanch of Gram. Paachayat Thakurikapa, Tahsii - MungeU, District - Bilaspur. On certam. allegation dllring fhe pendeucy of proceedillgs under Secti.an 40 of the Chliattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhmiyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, 1993') she was suspended by order dated 8.7.2008. Thereafter, fhe respondent No.l subiuitted an. application to the Sub Divisional OfScer (Revenue), MungeU. to revoke the suspension, as the order was not confimied by fhe State Govei-aiuent wifhia a period of 90 .•:ry^ ,f€..,»^.1 fi a '-"•"">'. a v s '^^ ..ii'' 5. days. Accordiagly, fhe suspension order was revoked by order dated 23.1.2009. Being aggrieved bv fhe order of revocation of suspension, the petitioner (Up-Sarpanch) filed an appeal uiider Sectioa 91 of flie Act, 1993. The Additional CoUector, Bilaspur by ori.er dated 6.2.2009.(Annexure P/1) disinissed the appeal, findiag fhat fhere was no Ulegality in revocation of fhe suspension order and since fhe inatter is pending consideration before fhe Court below under Section 40 of fhe Act, 1993, no interfereuce was required. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a rcvision before the Director Pauchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, which was also disinissed by the itapugued order dated 4.7.2009 (Annexure P/2) ^vith a direction to fhe Court below to consider and decide fhe peading inatter as early as possible. Thus, fhe pedtioner has ffled fhis petition. Leamed counsel appearuig for the petitioner subiaits fhat fhe authorities below have wrongly iaterpreted fhe provisions of Section 39 (1) aad 40 of fhe Act, 1993. The respondent No.2 had no occasion to refer the inatter to fhe State Govenunent for confu-mation of fhe suspension order of the Sarpanch/ respondent No. 1. Having heard leamed couasel appearing for fhe parties and having perused the dociunents appended fhereto, I have gone through the relevaiit provisions ofthe Act, 1993. Section 39 (1) of the Act, 1993 provides for suspension of office bearer of Paachayat, upon whoin a show cause notice has been served for renioval from. office. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of fhe Act, 1993 provides fhat fhe order of suspension under sub-section (l) shaU.be reported to fhe State Goverrunent withia '"^•i Thakrm- a period of ten days aiid shaU be subject to such orders as the State Govemm.ent ruay deeiu fit to pass. If the order of suspension is not coniinned by the State Govemment WTifhia 90 days froxa fh.e date of receipt of such report it shall be deeiued to have vacated. In the picsent case the respondent No.l/Sarpaiich was placed under suspension on 8.7.2008, which was revoked on 23.1.2009, ia. absence of coiifinnation froni ftie State Goveminent. Thus, the ordei's passed by the aufhorities below are just aad proper. I do not filtd any perversity, illegaiity or jurisdictional error ia fhe impugned order. In view of the foregoiag, the petition has no inerit, which deserves to be and is disinissed summarily. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge