^h;i^«! ms m ie"~'1 t1 m IN THE HIGH ^OURT OF CHIIATTISGARH AT BII^SPtTR WRmSETITION N0.362.4/04 PETITIONER Kamesh Pradhan S/o Shri Peel ,-\C---^ ^a^ Pradhan? aged about4I Yrs. Sarpancli Gram Panchayat - Na'\vapara (B), R/o Nav^apara, Block - Pusaur, Tah. And DiStt;- Raigarh (Chttattisgarh) i . ~ ' VERSUS 1, The State of Chhattisgarh, 'tlxrough : the Secretar^, fi IDep^^EfflentpfPanch^at,^ D.K.S. Bfaawan, ]V[antralay,; Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Director Panehayat Rarpur Distt. Raipur CC.O.) 3. The Gollectoi^ Raigarh, Distt.Raigarh (C.G.) | WRTTPETITION UNDER AKriCLES 326 ANIX 2i2'7 OF 'THa&CQNSTlBI?lITION^OFINl>IA i 1 MAYITBE PLE^SKTO V^URECMKDSHIP :Ol>EARlTClII.ARSA®OIJ^TH]E-:PE'FI'TIQNER.,:.i As shcrwn above in the cause trtle. 02) BARTICUIMRS^ iQiR:?TaE.®ESPOMDENT'Si,^;;:. ^ Asperthecause'ititle.:.,,^^ •,.... :. ,' '., ^ '•4 ^^.s^i^fi H.^^-li 1 III :Ws: i 1 W \ iwm •! "r'i!^ n l' VK •iisl 6 \v:'-^ wm'Fm~s" 's-se-aa. M^M ••y- 3^;-:<<t-!<W4<,;wa)«'lt®tIC«9Wt< ^___im^ a^:^ '^.^ae.:."-'. ttje ©overrftnent 17.12.2004 Shri K.N.Nonde; counsel for ,5hj''iSaryayS^graw<il,i Petitionel" was jduly elected ^ Aftsr due enquiry, •I'he Collector declared hiffl disqualified for hoidingj been challenged by the petitioner ^ Director- Panchayat vi<fe order dated| Collector, dismissed •i'he appeat. Petitj that he has four living.children and day of January 2001.: Section 36 Q| Adhiniyam, 1993 reads as under'i djt 36. ''C'is^iwlificafion 'fw\b*u^. (1} Noperson dwllbeeliSjtdK Panchayat who - ' xxxxx xxxxx (m) has mone ttiantim o^oroffeftbeSff1' Ps'titisner's.^son-Esn+ionl.Nitha't} Lisesiort(BTl..)j/for famijy Riannjngfln she became pt'e9"<"'i*<lrly^g<"'? l?irth 2001. As toking blrth |of <t.chi|yafti ^i^Nl^ <tflf^-^l^ll<S ^RI $I< ii'a^ta^W petitjoner. Advocate for the State. (arpanch of SramPanchayat Navapara. jRaigarh vide order dated 22.04.2004 |the post of Sarpanch. That order has appeui and the appellate authority - 104.09.20)4 cffirmingithe order of the |oner' was disqualified only on the ground of them,one was born ofterthe 26 $ (m) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayatr'<y offief bfttwwafPawshajnat. tobe an office-bearefef xxxxx xxxxx llvl^g chlldren0f ofwhom isbepn 2001". y : :• , 'teia:Mrife,^R;l'..operOtecl.^6tlal'^ralTubal; ;l^4.2002. Byt despi-fethatoperdtion, o achjld ofter the 26th doy|of 3'anuanyi .r- thst operation dcteil^l.0'4,2002 wcs ._pv-..-......~. J^l^^o^ -.r IF1iE-Of!:'!:-'.^F;:'i!PM^!% ??:;'^& :^:?^.yM.?-^:.fl:%- ':£^:-'-f:':::.^ .H:^i! U.PiiK :::^':^i^"^'':.-^';"^.?:t^^E:''.^^;' ^"^'.''•^ •sssess ^N ^BRJ^^-^^i'WliWi?. 3nt5T 'q^? ».A?"2^ <U-tt!CTi"WWW^-':-"-: """ ~" "' Ic|<»<^' il;::!i^ <J- ••w:^ .'-•(• M % .^' *wfa-<«i•tii^'^.'is'iS A<-<tit ^•wpma^ not in tfie ccntrol of •rhe Retitfon^?', hence as an exceptJonal case, the prbvisions'r'eferred +0 above are not ajpplicable to him. For the purpose of fdniily pla{imng, anumber of methoyshave been intpoduced and out of'-those, the wife ofthe petitioner hfls followed one. None of these methods completelyj assures that after followin9 them, pregnancy will never Toto ploce. Thes4 methods are on!y preventive in nature. Chhatl'isgdr'h^Panchayat RaJ Adjiiniyqni does not make^arty excep+ion to such cont!r^encies,^'heTe'fore,w(ien^JTslawiS7ther6,thathos to be obeyed amlfollowey^TT^<^missionofthe(p4titionerhimseifthiat^H^ childreh cmd out of thenl one ahild toj>k birth dftef the 26th day of January 2001; cleorly establishes thot he w|is disijualified to hbld the offiee of 1/:; : • • : ' ' ~ ^ • ' i . '-. Sarpanch and in dtvivihg at the samei /•./.; ,'..'' •.-.''' "' • ..' : • .'.:- '''.•'; "'•'•': '.,'•'• Collector Rai9oph and the appellate a conclusion, bdth the fiourts below i.e. ^itl'iority - Director Panchqi'at did not commi'tany error. , u Or^erspaSsedbybo+htheoutl^ni+iesare<^ordin9tol<m;;'l'h^i''efore, no interference Is called fop. ,Accor'|)ngty. the Wrjt petition filed^y the petitionerisiiabletobeyisnlissedonyjsdismissacf. Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge ^u^rc^