lsi / DLTHEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATHSGARH AT BUASPUR PETITIONER '^'c^'"^ •" .,'•"•' »^t ^•.-^v-- s'f;^"'' ^llESPONDENTS W.P. No. .?s.-L4t./2002 Sadram Patel S/o Shri SalAk Ram Patel, Aged about 37 years R/o Village Rimzi Post Kelenda, Teh. Saraipafy Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS Govenunent of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary of Panchayat and Gramm VikashD.K. BhawanRayur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Mahasamund Distt Mahasamund (C.G.) ChiefExecutive OfBcer Janpad Panchayat Saraipali. 4. The S.D.O. Saraipali Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 5. Sahas Dev Patel S/o S.L. Patel, Aged about 30 years R/o Dongaripali TehsU Saraipali Distt. Mahasamund (CJS'Q WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226T227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 ^a' ^wvpi, ^n5[,ws, feirey W^T^I ^HWW?7? •>. .^^•^^^ ^ ll*1Mi *i-iii:n r'^^g ^^^r^ _...^..:1?'A...S.(.^..3^ 'Wl 200 sf^v '^gi'iR w^i 41<ll'vt4i-i 'qP-T?n ^ fg<^ ir srfi-Tci sn^ 13-09-2002 Shri Manoj Paranjape, coujnsel for the petitoner, Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrat^al, Deputy Advocate General for the State, Heard. In view of the limited nat^ire of the prayer made at the time of hearing on the question of adlmission, which is for a direction to respondent No.4 to consider the j-epresentation regarding handing over of the charge, copy whereof is anliexure P - 8, no useful purpose will be served in keeping this writ pet^tion pending and the same is beinj disposed Qf at the admission sta^e. Admittedly, the petitionej- was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rimzi, Tehsil Saraip^li, District Mahasamund. However, because of pendency of a crimin^.l case registered on the basis of Crime No.11/2001, charge of office of |;he Sarpanch was not handed over to him. Aggrieved therewith, the p^titioner submitted a representation to the Collector, Mahasamund as ^?ell as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saraipali for handiijig over the charge, copy of the said application/annexure is P - 7 d4.ted 14-02-2001, but no action having bcen taken thereon, the petitionqr is befpre this Court. >_!-^t:-2. ^q ^rrqwi, ^ftwre, »w{'^l i ^Vv ^irra ;'i-s1: KWJf ..._...UJ;fA^^.^ •"w .' STPST ?«nwWCT 2— ^piferin 'WRff'? fsw ^ifzre ^3rf:!rt(3ff^I Inviting the attention of tihe Court to the provisions contained in Section 36 of the Panchayat Rfaj Adhiniyam, 1993, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitionyr that the authorities were notjustified in not handing over charge of t matter for consideration at this |ie office to him. That, however is not a stage because ^f his representation is still pending before the Autho|rities. Under the circumstances, this I petition is disposed of by direct(ng the respondent No,3, -who accordin^ to the learned counsel for the ^etitioner is the concerned authority, to dispose of the petitioner's repijesentation within a period of 15 days from the date of communicatio^i/receipt of the order. It is made clear that the Court is neither exprejssing any opinion on the merits of the petitioners representation nor hjis entitlement ba his claim for assuming charge of the Office of Sarp^nch and this direction is not to be construed as any expressioil on the merits of the petitioner's i representation, In other word^, the authorities will disposc of the representation on its own merit^ and inaccordance with law, With the aforesaid obsenj'ations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of, Sd/- P.C NAIK Judge