fsr. yi{¥ii'sij'vii .y^iji!iy/tij 3 ^ ^ ^ /^?> 2— IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. ' ^ Of 2007 (Arising out of Writ Petition (C ) No.6774/2006) APPELLANT: -- Rameshwar Sahu S/o Shri Chamru RESPONDENTNO.l aged about 35 years , Sarpanch ( Removed ) Gram Panchayat Chhind, resident of Chhind , Tahsil >-<*'^is Sarangarh , District Raigarh (CG). /'^v ff}" ^•^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS PETITIONER •^^c ^^^w^ 1. Ghanshyain Yadav S/o Shri Sunder Lal Yadav , aged about 26 years , officiating sarpanch of Grain Panchayat Chhind , resident of Village and Post Chhind , Tahsil Sarangarh , Distarict Raigarh (CG). -2. The Collector and Prescribed ^.O^,^ Officer , Raigarh, District ^y^ Ra^'(caTB~ ^.^* ^ S.The Sub Divisional Officer/ ^<o^ Prescribed Officer, Sarangarh , District Raigarh (CG). ^ 4. The Returning Officer- Tahsildar , Sarangarh District Raigarh (CG). WRIT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5th DECEMBER 2006 PASSEDIN WRIT PTITION ©N0. ^. 6774/2006 BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE SHRI S.K.AGNIHOTRI ( UNDER RULE 157 (10) OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES, 2005) ^—e=— ^y' \-': HIGH COtMT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench Coram: Hon'bte Shri H.L. Dattv, CJ & Hon'ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J WRIT APPEAL N0.19 OF 2007 APPELLANT Rameshwar Sahu Versus RESPONDiNTS Ghanshyam Yadav & Others Present: Shri Amrito Das, counsel for the appellant. Shri R.S. Patel, counselfor respondent No.1. None for other respondents. ORAL ORDiR (Passed on23r<* February,2007) The following oralorder of theCourt waspassed by H.L. Dattu,C.J. This appeal is filed againstthe order passed by leamed singte Judge in Writ Petition No.6774/2006 dated 05/12^006. By the impugned order, learned Singte Judge has set aside the order passed by the Collector and Prescribed Officer, Raigarh dated 16/11/2006and also had directed to give effect to resolution passed by Gram PanchayatChhind, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh. 2) The facts, in brief, are: Appeltant before us was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chhind, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, in the election held on 15/01/2006. The members of the Gram Panchayat hadrequested the competent authority to convene a meeting to © express their no confldence motion against the Sarpanch. Pursuant to request so made, ftie competent authority had issued a notice directin® the members of the Gram Panchayat to parttcipate in the meeting ttwt would be hetd on 31/03/2006 to consider the request made by the majority of the members of the Gram Panchayat. 3) The prescribed authority, while issulng the aforesaid notice, had directed one Shri K.S. Mandavi, Tahsildar of Sarangarh to preside over the meeting of no confidence motion that woutd be held on 31/03/2006. 4) For some reason, the aforesaid ofRcer coutd not chair the meeting and in his place one Sameer Nag, who had joined th@ office as Tahsildar on 04/04/2006, presided over the meeting of no confidence on 13/04/2006. In the meeting so held, the majori^ ofthe members of the Gram Panchayat had expressed ttieir no corrfidence against the Sarpanch. 5) Aggrieved bythe aforesaJd order, the appeMant heretn had llted an appeal before the Coltector, Raigarh. who by his order dated 16/11/2006, had setasidethe resolution passed In ttie meeting hetdon 13/04/2006. One Ghanshyam Yadav, who is said to be aggrieveel by the order passed by ttie Collector, Raigarh, had approachedthis Court in Writ Petition No.6774/2006. interalia questionlng the correctness or otherwise ofttie order passed by the Collector. 6) Learned single Judge, after hearing the parties to ttie Hs has come to the conclusion that St does not matter who is the officer who has conducted the meeting that was convened to express no confidence motion against Sarpanch ofttie Gram Panchayat. Further, he has taken into conslderation that merely because another offlcer -3- who was also competent to conduct the meeting, no prejudtee has been caused to the appellant. 7) In our opinion, the thinking, reasonhig and the concluston reached by the learned singte Judge cannot b®said to be elther arbitrary or illegal. In view ofthat, we do not propose to interfer®wHti the orders passed by the teamed single Judge. Therefore, theappeal requires to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 8) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge