7 c^ w "y \-TTf IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURt OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION fGyNO.^si& QF2008 PETITIONER ^'.x^ ^•^ v> y ^•^.-3^ •^yy .'<f. ...••"' Ku. Surwnda Mishra, D/o Late Ram Marain; Mishra, aged about 41 Years,Councillor, Ward No.l, Nagar Panchayat, ~Charama, Residentof Tahsil ChaFma, District, Kanker (Chhatfisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS A ^f. w^y: ' •;-;^ ^i^y .'ffA > /',¥ i^^';'.: 2. 3. State pf Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarti) ColieetQr, Kankei-, Dtstrict K^nker (Chhattisgarh) ^ Nagar Panchayat, Charama, through its Chief Municipal Officer, TaM. Charama, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITIN NATURE OF eERTlORARI. MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND OTHSRSUITABI.E WRIT OR WRITS, DlRECTION ORDIREGTIONS. ORDEROR ORDERSi^ ;:': 1' , / •:: : .. ' . •:: '- ..' .' ^ The petitioner, above-named, most respectfully submitsas under: PARTIGULARSOFTHERETITIONER: As mentioned in the CauseTitle. PARTICULARSOFTHERESPONDENTS: As stated above in the CauseTitle. ^ !ifflBiaiiniu;ai«.«K,iiHiaa6«aiaisa8iis PETltlQNBR RESP'QNOENTS ^l©Hi@0:UR^C)E,i(SHMATi'IS@ia>R;M.^BI:LASRyR VVRITPBrlJIQNCe) N6^3-1®^B200g: • Ku. Stinanda MiShra 'Versus:' ._:,.•'. 1,. , .: . StateofGhhattisgarn&Qthers (WritPetitii3h^underN1iele226{rftheGffns Single Benefr!; Mori'bl^Shri SatteH'K. Agr(ihotri,..J. . Present:-' Shri SouraBh Sliarma,Adv6GateWlhe'petitioh^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ . SHri R.K.Bhaduri, Ranel LawygFf&rtheStafe. . ^^^^^•^^^^^. 1^^^^^^^ QRDER'fflmL}1 -^.^^.^^^^^ . -- ^ ^(Passedonfhis22"d.day'oi:Qctober,;2Qt^ 1. The petitiQner,.bytRisp^iti6riseekstQquashtheenlire initiatedundeFSecl:[®n41of{he;ehtettisgarhMuh]GipalitiesA^^ {for sttort 'We iAc^- l?9ST^ includirig^^^,^ '; (ArinexureP-1). ,';,.:^ :::;, .:':'<..',.:^:^.^ •; ^•.:^ ' '1:'';: •::' • 2. Learned cou'i^l,a[i(j^FtHgi3®Nhes^^ , is'eleGted t^unei ^rciiTii^rd3K|<3^:^Nagar Ra^^^ Distri($KarikeF.Qn;t^-l::iasiS^oFres@lylion?d^ed 20.5.20^8, ashow^^^ eause notiee dated 12.6.2008, was'issuedtofliie petjtioner by Ihe GolleGtpr, .Uttar Bastar, Kanker. • In .the said ^ mentioned.fhat ®n20.5.2008,; ares61ufi6niwas,^p Panchayat and the:Ghiief MunioiRal (SffiiGer.by tetteF da^^ ^forwarded thesame te^the CQIIeiaerfor:remQval;G5ffhe,p^ the irost of GounGiloF.^Leamed.Gounsel^^^ ^. . passirlg the reSQlution daied 20.S.20(%,^he?petitibne^was^ot irifo aboufthemeeting'ofthe'NagarRanghayat.^ ' . ;^^ , 3. Shri SMarma, also sybmitslBatHnd6rtne:.p^isr0riS;c^ the Aet, T9®1^nD^^iytion r^rnrneMing T6FnWa|,,Of th .!:•'•.•- shall^be paSsed,by^;the,Nagar'panG;ha^ given reascnaBle;ORportyrtit^]tc}^H^cause. ^ rtofice.daled-12.6.2008 as;wgroasthe"gntireR """T" ^®?|3^^®1^^^^^^^^^^%?^^^^^^^^^^^^S^: •^, against tHe petitjoner under the provisicins' of Seetion 41 of the.Act, 1961 arg not sustainable and the same may be quashed. Leamed eourisel iri support of his contention placed Feliance upon the decision of this Court rendered iri On V/ft?a/ C/iopra v. Stafe of Ghhatfisgarh & Others'. . \ : ,. ::..•:; . : . • , :. 4. On ttie other hand, learned counsel appeafirfg:forAlie State supported the impugned action taken by the respondent authorities. 5. I have heard leamed'CQUnsel appearing forthie pafties, perused fhe pleadirtgsandthedocumentsappendedthereto. , 6. This Court in Bftasf/ Sort/rarv. Stefe af©/7/jaSfs§srf7<S pffie/s2, reljance was plaeed on a decision 6f the Supreme Court in M/s: Siemens Ltd. v. StateafMaharashtra &0fhers ,wherein'itwas held that: "10. Although ordinanly a writ court may not, exeroise its: disGretJonary jurisdictiah in entertaining ,.a writ -pstiticin questioriing ;a;Viro{^ eause uhless th8 same inter alia appears to ^/ havg begn^ witMout jurisdiction as ;has been helGl by this CourE ih SQme d®C(sions including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Knother, MR. 1987 SC 943; Special Dipectioh and Ancither v. MohQ.: Ghulam GhouSie anel Another (2004) 3SCC440 and On/on oif/ntf/a snd Another . v. i'Kfjhisetty Safyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCALE 262, butthe question hereih ;has to be cortsidered from.a different angle, viz. when a hotice is issue with premeditafion, a writ petition.wquld be maintainable. In suclf an evenf, even if the courts directWe stafutory auttiority to hear the matte'r afresh, OFdinarily such heaFJng would not yield any fruifful puFpose (see /C/.SAepftare/ aod Others v. Llnion sf Indiaiand others (1987) 4 SGG 431: AIR' 1'98S SG 686). It is evident in the instant Basg that the reSRondent has .clearly Inade ;up its mihd; It ^explicitly said: sa !both iri •the •«•: 1 W.P.(C) NO;2788 St 2007 (decidetl' bh ^9:9.2008) 2 W.P.No.5853 of 2006 (decfded on 4.3J2008)' 3 2006 AIR SCW638B y 1^0 y^^gisl •K KVStS .i^ii-,as3- "y:' y^ft^^^^^^^^^ ^tfe^iB^fa 7. 8. ^, counter affidavit as- also in tts purported show cause." . T^GQun\riDr.VimalCttopm,i^seneSas\indiec'. In view of the foregQing, !t is evident that fhe respohSents/auffionties have fonned opiniQn with regard to certain allegations in respect of financial irregulanttes, ^s have been faund — proved ' without: afforelmg praper Qpffartitnlfy of hearingWfhe petitioner to put {orwarcj his'cstse. Thus,the impughed .show cause natice dated 12.4.2007 (Annexure P/3) is vitiated and is acGordingly quaShed. However, it is open to the auttrorities/ respQndents to canduct an enquiry,.in acoordance with the provisions af Section 41-A of the.Act, 1961 or any • ': ofher provisions of theAct, 1961, if so advised. Applying thewel] settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the irnpugned showcause notice was •issued by the Colleetor, Uttar Bastar, Kanker, to .the petitioher after having recorded the cohclusion as under: "^T ?R? 'ET? Wff 'uTTrTT t, f?l? sm^ gTCT Tt ^TaiT t3?3t ^ sfT^; f^R^T? WT "^ • grt^ sr^nf^ tf^ ygr ' : •i'i|<i4iT?i4ii srf£ F?t, ct>4'ciiR^T sisqgT ~QW w^'\"\\ ^ war. vialRld ? ? 3Fpf?[ STTTPT1 ?PTIrt ^l? ^T : , sRra^Ttr 'asiT 314*11-iv\^d!, •?i6^r •EPT .ff3fpT cp^T 'gl? fSTETR' ?A f^Rr1 ^OT"T if^ f^E(t .uTraT'tl ^4<!lcWI'j,<H|tl'c^l Fl'i-^'i ^T ^ q?Trr ^ 3nq 3TT^^ ^ t| 3^^ ^T 31^^411) WER'T ^TT i,.ij'ci'iul ^' ¥ltlft : • . • ^ Sfm WTT ^TRTT 11 ; 3(TC(^ 'g^RT ^fi'. ^ ~Wf Wliid 'c|l<ili1i cf?t slcicfrl' tt ^Trf^T 'c^ , , ! T[E?) ^r[R Itrf cTaiT: ul'-lBd ^ u^; [?Tf Tl : i ' • ^W ^ :^ 'EP^ sm 'f-r^ ^ • T[fr ^? 7rar t. :f^i^ 'si:^'^ WTT 'CTPTT : i - ' , ^/ t^o BS3 ~IQ t, f^ 3:ntR?r T'TC 4t|l'4d 'EfNTtTT ^ ^ **1 01 ^ ^ri^ ^ ^ W ?r;TT '?B;TT c^fgcT (TSTT TTf^- c^ ft^T ^t ^fe :Tf ^€f^? TTOT 11" 9. In view of the decision of this Courtin Dr.Vimal Chopra and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned notice dated 12.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) is vitiatedand is accordingly quashed. However, liberty is reserved to fhe respondent authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 1961,ifso aGlvised. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent iridicated above. No order asto costs. - Gowri/ Ashok Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge y LV) .^- lliMgf'BfeS'*! S£^^^a^ss-i;ri5a=s;gi^ 'ii; A -,-,&lS