93$ HIGH COURT OP CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (C3 N0. 5501 0f2006 Petitimier Smt. Neha Pandey, agad about 34 ycars, Wifc of Shri Lakshmikant Pandey, {Elscted Saxpanch), Gram Panchayat Sarsiwa, Block- Eilaigarh, District— Kaipur (QG‘). versus Respondents 1. Stats of C.G. Through Upper Colkmtor, Balcdabazar, Distxict— Raip-ur(c.G). 2. Sub Di§lisignal Omcer (Revenue) Bilaigarh, District- Raiyur (0.6L). (Prescxibed Authority) 3. Tahsildar, Biiaigarh, Disuic‘ta Raiyur (C.G.). (Presiding Of&:et} 4. Gram Panchayat Samiwa, Through l’anchayat Secretary, Block— Bilajgarh, District- Raipur (C.G.). wRlT PETET13EE UNDER ARTICLE 235/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA s3: Honmc She swab K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Virendra Shrama, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gueta, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate or the respondent No. 4. ORDER ( Paeeed on this gth day ofAngnst, 2007) 1.. The petitioner, 3y thie petition is impugniug the ‘no-confidence’ motion. hek} on 27.9.2006 against the petitioner (elected Sarpanch of Gram ?anchayat, Sateiwa) under the provisions of Section 21({1} of the Panehayat Raj Avam Gram Swamj Adhioiyam, 1993 (for short ‘the Adhioiyam, 1993’), wherein the ‘no—eontidence’ motion was canied out by majority. Out of 21 members; constituting Gram Panchayat 20 members were present and voted sod out of them 18 memhers voted in favour of the ‘uo-confidence’ motion. we {é 2. Ba‘mg aggn'éved, the, pati1i0nar pmferrad an a9pea} hefote tha Additiana} Cauecmr umim" Sectkm Q1 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Th6 Additional Conectar vide cider datsd 29.9.2006 (Axmexure P/ 6) dismissed the appea} as {mt maintainabla. 3. The provisians of Secticn 2} {4) 0f thé: Adhizxiyam, 1993 am very ckaar arid unambiguous. H. ckat’vj prmridcS that if tht Sarpanch desirm; to chaHenge the va}id£ty af the motiml canied 011i Imder sub-section {1), h€ shall, within sawn days from the date on which such motion was carrkid, mfar the dispute t0 the Collector who shall d€cid€ it, as far as possibk, Within thirty days from th€ date 01} which it was received by him. 4. The patitioner, in stead of referring the dispute t0 the Collector, 33 pmvided iii sub—sectioti (4) of Section 21 of the Adhim'yam, 1993, had chosen to file appeal before the Additional Coliecter which was iejected vizie impugned ardei" dated 293.2006 (Annexure Pfé) as not maimajnahie. The petitioner has not gone in appeal before the Director, Pagchayats but has preferred. this petition, ignerm'g the clear pmvieions 6f sub-section {4) of Section 2} of the Adhiniyam, 1993, which mandates Ieference of the dispute to the Collector. 5. In the facts of the ease this; petition is not maimainable as the petitioner has ignored the etatiitoi'y provieious and. rushed to this a Court Withont establiehing any fundamental or legal rights or hieacli thereof. 6. ln View of the foregoing thie petitioo i3 dismissed. However, in the ioterest of justice, the petitioner is granted liberty to take recourse to any other forum that may be available to the petitioner, if so advised. l Satish Sd/ Kikgnihotri \ l Judge Thakur