HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KU1VIAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 184 of 2008 PETITIONER Respondent No.9 RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 7 are petitioners Motiram Kurre; aged about 56 years, S/o Shri Fattu Kurre, the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sukhatal, R/o viiiage - Sukhata!, Tahsil - Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) (in W.P.(C) No. 3109/08, the respondent No.10 is also representing through the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sukhatal) Versus Satyendra Verma (Up-Sarpanch) S/o Ram Bhajan Verma, aged about 32 years. Shaiiesh Verma (Panch) S/o Ratan Lai Verma, aged about 31 years. Amar Verma (Panch) S/o Dauwa Verma, Aged about 30 years. Nemraj Verma (Panch) S/o Sitaram Verma, aged about 25 years. Kala Bal Verma (Panch) W/o Manoj Verma, aged about 27 years. Pyari Bai Sahu (Panch) w/o Itwari Sahu, aged about 36 years. Dhananjai Verma S/o Ram Verma, aged about 32 years. Al! above are R/o viilage - Sukhatal, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ;? 8. 9. 10. 11 12. 13. 14. 15. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kawardha, District Kabirdham. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Panchayat & Rura! Development Secretariat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Panchayat & Rural Deveiopment, Ralpur (C.G.) The Additionai Kawardha, Dlstrlct (C.G.) Coilector; Kabirdham S.P. Verma, The Chief Executive Offlcer, Kavvardha, Dlstrlct Kabirdham (C.G.) The Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue) Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Dhruw Ram Sahu, Secretary Gram Panchayat Sukhatal, Tahsi! Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Sukhata!, Tahs'i! Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Writ Appea! under Section 2111 of Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (AppeaS to Divlslon Bsnch) Act. 2008 Present: Shri AshoR Swarnakar, counsei for the appeiiant. Shri J.R. Verma, counse! for respondents No.1 to 7. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents No.9,10,11 & 13. Judgment (29th JuSy, 2008) The foiiowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: ^ ^ ^%€m /°> Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2. Appellant - Motiram Kurre who was respondent No.9 in the writ petition, has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 04.07.2008 passed inW.P.(C) No.3109/2008. 3. Thewrit petition fiied by respondents No.1 to 7 was dismissed as wlthdrawn vlde order dated 4ii1 Juiy, 2008 which reads as foliows:- "Mr. J.R. Verma, Advocate forthe petitioners. Mr. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer forthe State. Heard. By the instant petition the petitioners have made number of allegations of irregularities against respondent No.9 herein and directions have been sought to respondent No. 1 to 4 to take appropriate steps against the respondent No.9. Learned counsel for the petitloner submits that from perusal of the reports of Annexure P-1, P-6 & P-7 submltted by the Deputy Coiiector, Kabirdham & the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kawardha it would be evident that on enquiry they have found serioys lapses committed by the respondent No.9, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitloners may be permitted to withdraw this petjtion wlth llberty to take suitable steps under the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the competent authority for taking appropriate action against the respondent No.9 on the basls of alieged ailegations against the respondent No.9. In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concemed competent authority under the provislons of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 for taking appropriate action against respondent No.9. 4 (^ Consequentiy, pending I.As are aiso stand dismissed as withdrawn." 4. On a bare perusal of the above quoted impugned order whereby the writ petition fiied by respondents No. 1 to 7 was dismissed as withdrawn, we do not find any observation/finding in the impugned order which may cause any grievance to the appellant. 5. Shri Ashok Swarnakar, learned counsel for the appejiant vehemently argued that the iearned SJngle Judge has erred in giving liberty to respondents No. 1 to 7 for approaching the concerned competent authority under the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,1993 for taking appropriate action against respondent No.9. 6. Even without the grant of liberty by the learned Single Judge, respondent No. 1 to 7 or for that matter any one else is free to avaii the remedjeswhich may be avaiiable to them under the relevant provls'ions of iaw. 7. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ appeai, which is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice padma Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge