.^7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. i C %-?> /2003 c^ t'B ^•••il: Petitioner / ^^ •\^?^ ••V>1.^'BA''£^->" ^^^ <y Respondents PURUSHOTTAM LAHRE, aged about 39 years, S/o Shri.Santram Lahre, Panchayat.Secretary, Navapara, R/o Ghutkupali, Post Chhapora, P.S. Pusaur, Tah. & Distt. Raigarh. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : The Secretary Department of Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector (Panchayat Branch) Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ,1: ;• ;!'';^»gMS?"'i:: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2^6/227 OF THE ,^' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ::*.^^ ^ f-i ;:(il«.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRITPETITION N0.1183 OF 2003 Purushottam Lahre Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDERJORAL) (Passed on this 17th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 25-2-2003 (Annexure - P/3) passed by the respondent No.2 in appeal No.47/B-121/2002-03. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Navapara, Raigarh. On the basis of corr'plaint made by some persons against the Sarpanch, an enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, after following the due process of law the Sarpanch has been removed and the recovery proceedings have also been initiated against him by order or the Sub Divisional Officer on 19- 12-2002 (Annexure-P/2). 4. Being aggrieved, the Sarpanch preferred an appeal before the Collector, which was decided by order dated 25-2-2003. However, while deciding the appeal, the Collector held the petitioner guilty and directed to initiate recovery proceedings for an amount of Rs.36,656.13. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary, as the same has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the pefitioner and even the petitioner ~ was not a party before the authorities below. 9 '.":<'jjSS.'Ey S 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State fairly concedes the fact that the petitioner was not a party before the authorities concerned and even before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 25-2-2003, passed in respect of the petitioner, is quashed. However, on the request of learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents to take appropriate action for recovery of the amount, in accordance with law, ifso advised. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. _ __ . Sd/- SatishK.Agniiiotn Judge Amit