^.\ f^ 'f' a-u c ^g'<QO iPA<a6No.«A..4 ^:.>".('.-X^J'_.-;-"-...,.^-.,'---^.j-,'--^^^,/";..'. . •.' .' '. '~'.:' :• "' ' . .'•-••••/^' INTHE HIGH COUFRTOr JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHAmSCrARH) WRFT PETITION No.:- ^r'S"2'-^ / 2005 S.B. rETITIONER: - JANARDAN PRASAD SAHU, S70 Angad Prasad Sahu < A.ged about-47 yrs. By Post :-Up- Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Udhanapur R/0 Village Udhanapur, Tahsil:- Manendragarh, Distt. Korea-Baikunthpur(C.G. -:VERSUS:- RESPONDENTS:- ^y ^f>- . ^ ^- ^IN' v>>^^-" ^w: ^".^••"i ^-.3-c:0^ ^^ <..®"1'"'. ^k" ''/"2- ^3. /"4. The State of ChhattiSgarh Through The Secrefaiy, Panchyat SE Gramuiyikas D -K. S. Mariitralaya Bhavan, ' RAIPUR, Distt.Raipur (C.G.) The Collectoir, ^ Distt. Korea-BaikUnthpur(C.G.) The Sub-Divisibnal OHIcer, S Tahsil: -Kliadgawa, Chrimiri, Distt. Korea.-Baikunthpur(G.G|)' The Chief Executiye OfBcer, } Janpad PaHGhayat Khadgawa j Chrirniri, Distt. Korea-Baikunthpur(©,G.) BANARSI PRASAD, S/OJagjivanPra.sad, * . Aged about-45 yrs. 'R/OVillage:-Udlianapur, Gram Panchayat-KHadga'wa, Chrimiri, Distt. Eorea- Baikunthpyr(e.G;.) ,, WRITPEn'nOifcI!NDERjAR'NCI-E226/2270K1'HE CONSTlTU'I^NQFSlNE>]UiEff TH& ''• • :" .,'^t:>R:ORDER(Sl.' .:;:: :':';1;":'1^ 1 ::: Theaboyena.inedPetitiOnerrrioSfrespectfuIlybegstosubmita.s under: -; ,' : -. ^ .' - :.''.^::''.::.'.^' •: :' : : : • :': .' '^ . PARTlCULARSiOFTHEPEnTIONER:- As per mehdpned^a ve inffie eaiise title pfthe petition. 2. PARTICULARS OP THERESI'ONBENTS :- -- As per menfioned above in.tlie'eause title'offhe pefition XI-HC-78 *ll*l«l?SW ^TO) '^Mfvw, WTaiw}ff,Kvwwy >.^°..^(S.^3>....^. • • • sVsV* •li««••••••••.<•^•KX.•-»-*'•••• • • ^.200 SII^CTOT R-li* ?raT3II^?Tsb*li* \— 3[I^?I q3?F{^fg6!^) B^iiwaft^sf^w Glovt 7-10-2005 Shri J.A. Lohani, counsel Shri Sandeep Dubey, No.1 to 4. Heard both the counsel. The petitioner who is an df village Udhnapur, Tehsil Ma( this writ petition questjoning the| prder dated 18-8-2005 passed| the petitioner has been order^d Sarpanchas he is working in tl) undertaking of the Central hold ofRce of Up Sarpanch andj provisions ofSectlon 36 (1) (d) Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Brief facts leading to flliht of Panch and Up Sarpanch of fhe month of January, 2005. Panch of Grani. Panchayat and being a ^rpanch he was Gram Panchayat. A complaint S.D.O. that the petitioner hereif) which is a public undertaking 4 was holding an ofRce of profrt) 'entitled to contest the electionl petitioner, an enquiry was conj: Celleetor who also issuad notici <p|t|fn<i1l *rilo»Ttf feicl <lvn'«;i'( ^afl^Tan^a ; forthe petitioner. t. Advdeate for the State/respondents ^lected Up Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat jiendragarh, District: Korea has preferrsd legality^ propriety and correctness of the |by the District Collector, Korea whereby to be removed from the post of Up |e S.E.C.L. organization which is a public Go'<|ernment,-therefore, he is not entitled to |Panch ofvillage Udhnapur in viewofthe |of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj 4dhiniyam,1993). of this writ petition are that the etections pram Panchayat Udhnapy.r.were held in |The petitioner contested ^KiUhe post of Udh|napur and he was elected on 23-1-2005 on elected as Up Sarpanch ofthe said l»asfited by respondent No.5 before the is already an employee in the S.E.C.L. jif the Central Government, therefore, he and as such he was not qualffiedand I. Upon this a notice was issued to, the tlucted and the matter was sent to the •o,r /*/^n/^t i^+inn tha aB/^f*i«'»rtin^I<;»i? lelter ^^i^;i;^^ MiEt'SBS^i ^KSW^S^^ l^^1^^^'-'^ :^ ^II@3 •^ffis N^^^^S^^ ESS3^i8SB(*3 ^K;li^ ^t BSSBySi3 t^S^ySS^'K. iiaiiilB XI-HC-78 <dwi roKJ i<w, u>'<$l'«<i<i» qpRCT^n^ aiitnmR'ii* ?raisii$OT*tiicb Barve an^WCTP (^clf'^i<d) S^ITW!^rtl?T3ni;?I -^ Act the Collector reached to already working as an employej provisions of Section 36 (1) (d) not eligible to be anoffice beai passedthe impugnedorder. ;,,.; It has not been disputed| eiHployee of the S.E.C.L.. M<| shows that officer of the ^6.306 datsd 10-4-2005 infori) working in the S.E.C.L., as S.E.C.L. is not eligible and Panchayat. Therefore, 1 do not find order. The writ peitition is, accordinglydismisseci. Nocost^ Consequently, M.(W.)P. tlte conclusion that since Uie petitioner (s(% e^ in^the S.E.C.L.,therefore, in viewofthe - of the Adhiniyam, 1993 the petittoner^'a<r' ijer ofthe Panchayat and accordingly, he |bythe petitioner herein that he is not an treover, perusal of the impugned order dep^rtment of the Personnel vide his letter infori|fied the Collector that the petitioner is the petitioner being an employee of the sntitled to be an offiee bearer of the sucn <nit|(n<Sliii»ic»li"^ffel^l'(Ril'(^l'( i|?3lf^T3II^?T |any illegality or infirmity in the impugned th^refore, liable to be dismissed and it is to.3970/2005stands disposedof. •I" Sd/- LCBhadoo \ ^ Judge M ;1