I 1 S §§T2iEi ’' HIGH COERT @v DICATURE CWATTI‘Sg? RH AT , C” EILA u i a I w.P.No. (92—9/2002 MTI-TIéMLR ‘ : Smt. Lata Dhmv " ‘ ‘ W/o Baharik Ram Druv, Aged about 33 years, o; village Dargahan Gram Panch&yat:Kurmatarai, TehSil 6: Eistt.Ehamtar1 (CG). vEasUs i : REsmNpENTs \ »’ g1?lL I :“ ¥ #4 state ef Chhattisgafh Through the Secretary, V Panchyat Depa rtment, DKS Bra van, Raipur (CG) . V 2mm Awiti'mal Collector. ‘ Ehamtari. Bisttznhmtari. 3) The sub'-aivisimia1 ‘ 0£f1¢er, I Bhamtari, Dis’tt.Ehamtavri. 4)Gram Panchayat Karmatarai.‘ .‘ Threugh the Se‘Cretary, v f Gram Panchaya.t__ Kumatari. » ' i ‘Tehsil £¢ Bistt.Ehamtari. _ 5)'rhe Chief Executive efficer‘; ;.’ Janpaé Pane ayat, Bhamtari, Bistt. ari. ‘ ‘ a" .¢‘ c ) E t s i ‘ /;/.. XI—HC—ZZ a m my? g m/K ‘Shri .Diwa lcrned couns r thc peu"h'or. Pkar, a el fo ne Shri Sjay K.Ag1aa1, arne y.Aocte—ne for the an w led DdvaGeral Sate. Amay, te p'u'one a mov as a 11 after enquix as cntela under s scction (1) f ctn 40 of aim y ompmd u - o Seio the Chhall' garh Panr‘hayat Raj A hjniyam, 1993. ’ However, wpn'h: passing thc order of mmoval, Pmscribcd Authority had duected that the operation of its orfier shall remain stayed till 22.6.2002. Aggrieved with the elder of rembval, the wtitioner pxeferred an appeal in which a prayer for interim order was also made. The sau'd prayer, however was‘rejected on 18.6.2002 on the gmumf at stay could not have been granted by the Prescribed Authority ' ' passing an order of removal. It is the contention of Shr'i Diwakar that since the I scribed Authority had stayed the, operation of the order of moval h'll 22.6.2002 the Appellate Authority was not right 'm v ating that orrler or in the altemaWe Vit should have allowed to I ‘ c ntjnue that order till atleast 22.6.?20025 At any rate, it was » w i§v23§ b WW" w h eur ws reed W ‘ ma: 7 mar Wsném mmmw ahm‘m *—“"G . . 2 XI—HC 22 man f {q \ m—im't—z‘m itat-W : “li- r _ 7"” imying the opemtion of the {order passed by 1hr Pxescribed Xuthoxity. Having heard learned counsel. thnCourt is not gl’é’hnsd to ’n'fe’ftain this writ peh'u'on, as in it‘s opinion, noreuor has been o'nimitted by the Appellate Authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 4O of the Act clearly lays down mat a person Who‘has been ~cm¢ved under sub-section (1) nember of any other Panchayat ofw ch he ls a momber and that he shall also be dlsqualmcd for a hemfore, the intention of statutev] akcs c cct the moment it is passed. Le Appellate/was nght m not Inthisviewofthematter,’tl: taying the opelation of the impugbed order. Moonlingly, the tiiion {Eails and is dismissed. ‘ § merits mthm a masonable 'spose of the appeal on its own i L.“ the Appellate Authority win It is, howcvcr, hoped that forthwith cease to be a lmd of 51x years. Obvlously, ts that the onier of removal Author lty