@ \ RIT PETm (Pefi‘l'ion under Arficle PETITIONER RE5PGNDENTS Vs gh, aged abom‘ 46 years, Sarpanch, GI .22 NO.2151 6F 200 7 of the Consfifufion of india) iab Singh Chanda}, son of Shri Ramdhin S 'am Panchuya‘t Kodabha‘rh, Tehsil Pmmgarh, Disfricf Janjgir-Chumpa (C6) Sfafe of Chhu'Hisgarh, fhrough The Secre‘rary, Depari‘menf of Panchuya‘f & Welfare, D.K.S. Manfmluya, Raipur. The Addifional Collector, Janjgir, DIS‘h‘icT Janjgir-Champa (66) Socia§ Bhawan, Gram Panchaya'r Kodabhafh 'rhrough‘iis Secremry, Gram Panchaya‘r KodaSha'rh, Tehéii Pamgar‘h, ’ DESTric+ Junjgir- Champa (CG). Janapud Panchuyat ?amgarh Through ifs CHief Execu'rive Officer, Jenapad Panchayu'i', Pumgqr‘h, Disfricf Janjgir- Champa (C6). \>/~a \¥r \ ” 8 2 n W ON Wm W 200 mwqaigagu) mmm ammm 3R “mm mmeiwm mmm mmmia; amwéwm Preserrf: Mr. Rujeev Shrivas'mva, Advoca‘i'e for The pe‘fi‘i’ioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt AdvocaTz for fhe STaTe. O R A L 0 R D E R (Passei on 15.4.2008) Per Dhirendra Mishm J‘ 1. Heard. 2. This peTiTion is direc‘fed agoing'r The order do‘i’ed 4.4.2008 (Annexur'e P-5) passed by The respondenf No.2-Addi1'iona3 CoHecfor whereby fhe a ea! of ‘i'he pe'fifioner under Secfion 91 ’I of fhe C,€. Panchaya'f Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for‘ shorf ‘Adhiniyarn, 1993') has been rejected. 3. Eriefly $fafed facfs nece Vsar‘y for The disposal of i'his pe'm'ion is fha‘i' 'H'Ie posf of I Sarp nch of Gram Panchaya’f Kodabhaf‘oisx reserved for Ofher Ba ward Ciasses caTegory. The eiecfed Sarpanch of Gram Panch of Kodabhaf was removed on accoun‘r of firnancial irregularifies. e Gram Panchayaf in ifs meefing dafed 1.82007 unanimousiy pas ed a resolufion To appoihf fhe pefi‘rioner as subs'fifu'fe Sarpanch a d if was furfher resolved fhaf he sha“ . discharge fhe dufies of Surpaneh fill fhe nexf election. The resoiufion was forwarded o fhe Chief Exec‘ufive Officer, Jariapad a XI»HC—78 Panchaya‘f ?amgar‘h for Panchaya‘f Kodabhu‘f vide‘ no‘rice dafed 13.3.2008 of Annexure P-3 f 6mm Panchuya‘r on 27.3.2003 for appoin’fmem‘ of subsfifufe Sarpanch as per provisions of Sec’rion 33 of The Adhiniyam, 1993‘ as 'l’he elected Sarpanch has been remaved by fhe prescribed aufhorH’y from hfs posf. The pe‘H'Honer preferred an :ppeai under Section 91 0f fhe Adhiniyam, 1993 agains? #he issuance of no-i'ice of Annexure P-3, however. fhe appeal has been dismis order of Annexure P-5. . Learned counsel for Th peTiTioner submiTs ThaT The peTiTioner has been elecTed as 5a panch in accordance wiTh SecTion 38 (1) (b) of fhe Adhiniyam‘, 1 93 and his eiecfion canno‘t be sei’ aside 'rh Secfion 122 of fhe Adhiniyam, 1993 read wi'i'h Ariicie 243 (o of The Consi'i'i’ufion of Endia. . There is no force in Th above argumenTs of The {earned counsei for ”the pe‘rifioner. A meni’ioned above, The pei’ifioner was r appoinTed as subsTiTuTe Sarpanch To fill in The casual vacancy in The office of Gram Pa chayaf by unanimous resolufion of fhe Gram Panchayai'. The p 'i'i‘l'ioner was never eleci’ed as 5arpanch. If is no? in dispufe ‘r af +he posf ofSarpanch in fhe Grain convened a mee‘ring c excep'i' in accordance necessary acfion. The Secrefary‘ Gram d by The responden'f No.2 vide impugned Wm ................................................... E200 _ mamaaiaaaa) WWW ammo—ma? momma Pg— mMawm amifawm XI—HC—7 8 @ WEI Panchuyaf Kadabha‘!’ is served for O‘ther‘ Backward Classes ca'regor'y, whereas, The p fifioner does no‘i' baiong +0 The above cufegor‘y. The firs‘i' proviso f0 Section 38 (1) (3) of ‘fhe Iadhéniyem, 1993 clearly r The members of Scheduled Casfe, Scheduled Tr‘ihe or O'l’h r Backward Classes cafegory or for a woman, i'he officialing S rpanch shall be elecl‘ed from amongst 'l'he members belonging envisages fhm‘ where 'rhe office of Surpunch is reserved f o The some cafegory and Thus The appoin’rmenl of fhe pefif oner as subsfi‘fufe Sarpunch of Gram Panchoyo? Kodabho‘i is con mry To The s‘l'ohjl’ory provisions. 6. In These circumsfances fhe appeal of The pefifio Officer! Janapad Ponchayc in accordance wh‘h 5eci’ior 7. Tn f‘ne result 'lhe pefifionlhas no subsfance, fhe same deserves fo reby dismissed of The admission sfage respondenl' No.2 has righlly rejeci'ed ner and direc'l'ed +he Chief Execufive .f Pamgarh fa elecf subsfifufe 5arpanch 38 (1) (b) of fhe Adhiniyam, 1993. be dismissed and if is he ifself. 8. No order as ‘i'o. cosfs. ~\¥ n >1 h' / Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Wm W200 mm(§f§a§u) maxim 3211mm WWW HM.— mm§wm éwffimm