[H‘i‘ ‘ ‘“’- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. NO. {5‘46 2004 XX PETITIONER ~ ‘\ : Lekhani Bai, W/o.Mah€ttar Aged about 35 years, Caste Gond R/o. Village Khondhar, Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS O §$P0NDENTS z 1. State of Chhattisgarh ‘Through Director Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector District Janjgir— Champa (C. G.) Sub Divisiona Officer l Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa 4 . The Secretary Gram Panchayat Khondhar r; Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) fffw WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE :226/227 a OF a *i \ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ XI-HC-22 m m wwwml» ‘giZOO Sh Rakes Sahu counsel fo hri Ssh Baj, Dcputy The peitioncr has pmfene 26/227 of the Cotuu'o of In ted 11.5.2004 (Annre P-1) p pondent No.1) by which the smissed, which ws Eled agast i a in t hamp er 1 f ains c a . t a ainst t The grievance raised by e petitioner in this rit petin'on that at the time f meeting the Psiding O$ce should have given r an opporty to explai the arges levelled agt her. The ting in the minute bok that the etitior has n said anything ich is toty incorrect and g the law of'quityQ Consel for petitioner furth submits that e petitioner was not allowed to ak at the meeting and, herefore, portunity as given to her. I have perused the proceeding the no confidnce motionwh‘ich at Page No. 15 of the petion, in ich it has been mentione that meeting of the Pancha‘yat strt at '12 noon, i te beginning le motion and leveled the charges t deposited the amount of Tendn the petitioner. ri h , x dv r p Gt, Adv. fo the State. this writ etition under Article ia being aggn'eved by th orer- s by the Dixector, Panchayat revision of the petner was e order of the Collector, Janjgir- e Collector dismised the appea t d h s l der of the ptescribed authority hdence motio’ was ld to be a (respondent No.2) wheby the petitioner med agt the ted 02.012004 whereby the ‘no C ’r rried out ag the petiioner. S t Ram Panch moved no conndenc ainst the petitioner thatshe had nc 8i cattle market fee ‘and no information was given by the petitioner ard' 'nn nf sohoolJaniJdmga“ I 7 x .1 l at 24.08.2004 S nme ja 2 nsitn c a exu a s l e d .sed tiio h m n he main ‘h W o na r e unit n (b ains o o pne ot h all aainst e u e er th s e t no op w of e i ti wh d e aeid n h XI-HC-22 v Wham mm W” W m mmaTm www WW %Wm in the proceeding that thz pet‘ agt the msoluh'on or charg‘ the Panchas present at the n mchise. Acmrdgly, out of 1 Panchas voted in favour of the 1‘ that the mion was carried out petitioner was not given opportunity to explain her stand at the ned in the peu‘tion or mised before the :etor and revisional authority i.e. the ner, that the prescribed authority was t is why proceedings were recorded iolity as Well as revisional authority aised by the counsel for the peh'tioner. L that the ground raised is baseless. itioner l dun‘ng the course of argument meeting. It has not been mentio appellate authority i.e. the Coll DixectDr ancyat, in any man biased with the petitionep tha iorrectly. The appellate ant] bo have’considercd he point I They reached to the conclusiox The learned counsel r the pet could not pont ou illegality or i; In View of the above, -I dc the udings of e prescribed a1 65 Dhector, Fanchayat. The pe1 dismissed. tioner herein had“ not said anything as levelled against her and themfore, leeting Were asked to exercise their 1 Panchas present in the meeting, 11 notion and ultimately, it was declared Therefore, it cannot be said that the iconeciness in the impugned order. not nnd any reason to interfere With Lthority and the orders ofvthe Collector ition has no substance and same is Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo Judge we; tea ains in ot Pha nc th t fo i t n th