T^ XI-HC—78 *II*ICTI ynw«h T^T T*ii^i<n^, ^Tii<H<i<o, 'fsidt-y^ t^ ^.......^....Liz^.n.^^1 3?IT^T XRPF (TISrf35R^) STi^T^ F^W WT CT^T »»*iw <\ wnw^f^T3n^?T PBTITIOENR DiUiaraa 38 yeai's, District R Versus RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of C| aad Bhawaii Rurbl 1.0,, tiLrough the Secretary Paachayat Development Department, DKS ^aipiirC.G. Jaiipad Executivd C.G. Smt. Paachay^ Bilaigarhj (Apptlcar^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 23 S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J 18.03.2009 Shri Rakesh Paadey, counsl Shri. Bhaskar Pyasi, Paael B Heard. <ftjqf<?1<fl<1 ^W^S ^ fs*<l <I^<^K ctT^tfW^n^T ^adav, S/o Resham Lal aged about IR/O Village Soniadih Block Bilaigarh, aipur, C.G. (Not arrayed as party) Additionstl Collector, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur C.|G. Sub Divi^ional Officer, (Revenue), Bilaigarh, District R|aipur C.G. Panchayat, fhrough tlie Chief Officer, BUaigarh, Distdct Raipur Aitirika Bai, Ex, Sarpaiich, Grsan t Soniyadih, Jaapad Paachayat Distdct Raipm', C.G, t/ revisionist) "LOF THE CONSTITUON OF INDIA sl for fhe petitioner. awyer for fhe State. T y XI-HC—78 -g-wT '<||*ii^1^, ^>Tl1^<l<e, [s<dl^y,< <m<wwff^ '^200 ^[^! 1CT3W ( ^(^^?) ^i^T^T ^Jch <<TO3!T1^T ^^it^ \ 1FCTW^TT3^T -2,. sarpa^ich The petitioner is Up-i Block- Bilaigarh, Distorict-Raipuij Sarpaiich of the said Paachayatl petitioner, a proceediag under S^ Grwn Swaraj Adhiniymn, 1993 is j She was also arrested for fhe remamed isi jaU for 45 days. offeikce of Gram Panchayat- SoniyadUi, whereas the respondent No,5 is On fhe basis of coniplaiat of Uie ^ction 40 of the Panchyat Raj Ai^am ^endio-g against the respondent No,5, under Section 409 of the IPC and The Chief Executive Of5ce]t menio of Annexure P-3 dated 13tlt direction of Chief Executive OfSc^r the Sarpaiich not to operate tlie ^a cltrected to haadover the charge Gram Panchyat. Agaiast the afore^ a revision before fhe Additional impugiTed order ofAnnexure P-14 Chief Executive Officer, Jaapad The petitioner has filed fhe| that tlie order of Annexure P-3 Executive Officer, JUa Panchl appropriate forum to challenge Paiichayat . The Additional Collel the revision, ^RfeRft^ 'W^!jf 'fif f^i<| ^pfl^K ^'37fim3^T [*, Jaapad Paachayat, Bilaigarh vide August 2008 issued on fhe basis of Jila Paachayat, Raipur, du'ected ^ccount of fhe Paachayat aiid further |of Sarpan.ch to Up-sarpaiich of fhe ^aid order, respondent No.5 preferred CoUector, Baloda Bazar, who, vide lated 20.2.2009 set aside the order of P^nchayat, BUaigarh. uistant petition only on tiie ground 47as passed as per du'ection of Chief ^yat, Raipur aad fherefore, the fhe above order was fhe Director ^tor had no jurisdiction to entertaui T XI-HC—78 's'5? ^i'^K'i^, y>Til-M<i<o, "fN^rary WHCWffllKfl ^200 31T^?T TRW ( yil^^l) 3?T^F ^f f<^<4) ^iT 371^'?[ sFWF 5 TO?W ^a ^T^T - ^ - Leanied counsel for the respondent No,5 has not been registoration of offence under she is stUl Sarpan.ch of fhe said ^etitioner has not disputed tih.at fhe pls^ed under suspeusion on tlie basis of Secjtiou 409 of fhe IPC agamst her and G|ram Paachayat, fhe order of Annexure P-3 itself is In view of the above factl without jurisdiction, Even ofherw|ise, Chief Executive Officer, Jaapad soine direction by fhe Chief Exec^tive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Raipur. In flie considered opiaion the facts aiid circiinistaaces of called for ia exercise of fhe Constitution oflndia. oifi The petition is accordingl| itsetf. cftj<4(<n<fli W^ff ^f fs<<! <P»i^i< ^r3tfiW3^T ;, fhe order has been passed by fhe laiichayat Bilaigarh, tiiough refers to this Court, takiag mto consideration |fhe present case, no iaterference is J4risdiction under Ardcle 227 of the j disnussed at tiie admission stage Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge