m IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.é929%.0F 2009 $§ng§a gamE? PETITIONER Komal Singh Thakur S/o Shri Mohan ' Singh Thakur, age about 36 years, Resident of village Tekari Post Mandhar Colony Dist. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. g § _ , ?“ No i.g L “I” ””4”“ J . ' smxiaéW‘ ~ CM! G . ‘ ' M ( g IL < :) RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary/Director of Panchayat Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) The Additional collector Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.‘G.)~ Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Vishnu Prasad Sharma, aged about 46 years, (Vice President of Janpad/ Panchyat Dharsinwa) Resident of Village Tekari Post~Mandhar Colony Dist. Raipur (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 6083 0f 2009 PETITIONFR : Komal Singh Thakur. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Ag’ nihotri, J. Present: Shri Rewa Shankar Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Government Advocate for the State. Shri Dinesh R.K.Tiwar1', Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 24th day of October, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 20m July, 2009 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Director, Panchayat, in Appeal No. 79/A—89/2008-2009 (Makesh Kumar Vishnuprasad Sharma v. Kama] Singh Mohan SinghThakur), whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 3, against the order dated 31“ December, 2008, passed in Case No. lS/A—89-A(15) Year 2007—2008 by the Additional Collector, has been allowed. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner filed anlapplication under section 92, 36 and 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ‘the Act, 1993’) on 20m September, 2007 (Annexure P/2) against the respondent No. 3 before the Collector, Raipur for recovery 0f Rs. l,38,370/— from the respondent No. 3., on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer i.e. the Fishery Inspector, Dharsinwa. On the said application, a case being No. l.5/A—89-A(l5) Year 2007-2008 was \ g$ » registered. After hearing counsel for the parties, the allegations made against the respondent No.3 were found proved and the respondent N0. 3 was terminated from the post of Member, Janpad Panchayat, Dharsinwa and he was disqualified for a period of six years for being a member of any Panchay, under section 40(2) of the Act, 1993. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Director, Panchayat. The said appeal was allowed Vide order dated 20th July, 2009 (Annexure P/l) setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur. Thus, this petition. Shri Patel, leaned counsel appearing. for the petitioner submits that the Drector, Panchayat was not ustified in reversing a well reasoned order passed by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 has embezzled a huge amount of money and thus, caused loss to the public exchequer. Thus, the respondent No. 2 has rightly removed the respondent No. 3 from the post of Member, Janpad Panchayat and as disqualified him for a period of h six years for being a member of any Panchayat. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and v documents appended thereto. It is evident that the irector, Panchayat by his order dated 20m July, 2009 sought to be pugned herein, has examined all the facts of the case and came to the concluson that the parties were not afforded proper opportunity before the respondent No.0 3 was declared disqualified for a period of six years. The allegations made by the petitioner have not been found proved as the petitioner has not raised at any point of time the so called irregularities committed by the respondent No. 3. On that basis, the ‘‘\ \ at r i j , D im i %‘? 3 , Director found that the order dated 3151 December, 2008 passed by the Additional Collector, was bad in law and thus, the same was set aside. The respondent No. 3 had already deposited the Government money t0 the tune of Rs. l,37,674/— on 4m March, 2009 in the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Janad Panchayat, Dharsinwa against receipt No. 53 and 54. 6. It is well settled principle that the Cour while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has to look into the deficiency in the decision making process, not the decision. Unless there is any grave miscrriage of justice or flagrant violation of law or the Court has mis-directed its order on law and fact, the High Court should restrain itself fm interferin with such finding mae by the courts below. 7. Applying the well-settled princies of law to the facts of the case on hand, no interference with the order passed by the Director, Panchayat, is warranted. 8. Conequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl- ATisn K. AGNIHomf e :17 l twang n ill , p t, a ro g d pl s S Judg