^FK. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :_B1!-A.SPUR PET1TIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0. 559 OF^006 Manoj Kumar Navrang, son of Shri Bhagbali Navrang, aged about 33 years, Resident of villagey''^Navapara, Gram Panchayat Mohtrara (Teli), Tahsil Lormi, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1. The Additional Collector, District Bilaspur 2. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG). 4. Gram Panchayat, Mohtara (Teli), Through Sarpanch, Smt. Leelawati, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG). 5. Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, son of Shri Churaman Jaiswal, resident of village Navapara, Gram Panchayaf Mohtara (Teli), Tahsil Lormi, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG). (Writ petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench ; Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Sandeep Dubey, counsel for the respondent No.3. None for the respondents No.4 & 5, despite service of notice. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 26th day of June,2009) Heard. 2) By this petition, the petition seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the orders dated 30-11-2005 (Annexure - P/14) passed by the Director (Panchayat), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in revision case N0.327/A-89/03-04 (Manoj Kumar Navrang vs. Gram Panchayat, Mohtara (Teli) and Another) whereby the revision filed by the petitioner herein has been rejected. The petitioner also challenges ^ /^k, '2-' .ff *K, ^^ ^ the order dated 27-2-2002 (Annexure - P/11) passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, in revision case No.SM-144/ 2000-2001. 3) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are •t' that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi/Secretary of village Panchayat Mohtara (Teli), Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Bilaspur, vide resolution dated 19-11-1995 (Annexure - P/1). Pursuant to resolution, the petitioner was permitted to join and accordingly the petitioner started working as Panchayat Karmi/ Secretary. The newly elected Gram Panchayat, without assigning any reason, by resolution dated 23-3-2000 (Annexure - P/4) removed the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary. 4) Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi, District Bilaspur. According to the petitioner there was a delay of about 40 days in filing the appeal. The Sub Divisional Officer by exercising his power under sub-rule (2) Rule 4 ofthe Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995") condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the same by order dated 4-11-2000 (Anriexure-P/10). 5) Thereagainst the respondent Nos.4 & 5 herein preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur. The Additional Collector by order dated 27-2-2002 (Annexure - P/11) came to the conclusion that the Sub Divisional Officer has committed an error by condoning the delay, as the appeal was preferred by the petitioner herein beyohd limitation period of 30 days. 6) Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 27-2-2002 passed by the Additional Collector the petitioner preferred a revision before the Director (Panchayat). The Director (Panchayat) by order dated 30-11-2005 (Annexure - P/14) eonfirmed the qrder passed by the 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) ^- Additional Collector and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Thus, this petition. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that the Janpad Panchayat was not a party and has nothing to submit in the matter, as the question involvetf in this petition is with regard to condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that the Additional Collector and the Director (Panchayat) have not examined the case in proper perspective. The Additional Collector and the Director have set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in a casual manner presuming that there was no power to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. Rule 4 (2) of the Rules 1995 clearly provides that "the appellate authority may admit an appeal after the expiry of thirty days referred to in sub-rule (1), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." The Sub Divisional Officer has considered each and every aspect before condoning the delay in preferring the appeal and admitted the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal v. M.P. Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. and Others, observed as under: "5. Whether those events were sufficient for condoning the delay or not was considered by the Appellate Authority in exercise of its discretion and it showed inclination to accept them for condoning the delay. As the Appellate Authority had done so in its discretion it is well within the Jurisdiction vested under law. In such a situation it was not proper that the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution upset such a finding granted to the appellant which only enabled him to have the statutory remedy of appeal pursued further." ' (2003) 11 SCC 727 \ Gowri 13) 14) v< The law is well settled that the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned by the appellate authority; the subsequent superior authority may not go into the reasons for condonation of delay. Learned Additional Collector and the learned Director, without assigning proper reasons, have set aside flhe order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. In view of foregoing, 1 am of the considered view that the order passed by the Additional Collector as well as the Director are not sustainable in the eye of law and the same deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the order dated 30-11-2005 (Annexure - P/14) passed by the Director (Panchayat), Chhattisgarh, Raipur and the order dated 27-2-2002 (Annexure - P/11) passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, are hereby quashed. The Order dated 4-11-2000 (Annexure - P/10) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is affirmed and the Sub Divisional Officer is directed to consider the case ofthe petitioner herein, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. In the result, the petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. a Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge