:C—78 ^ 7^r '^i^i<n^, yTi1-<H<i<o, f®i<ni'Hlj>< *II*ICTI «»*<i<=t»•• • •• -^^ 200 3TI^T TT^F ( yit^^) 3?T^T'9FT f^TW '<T<TT 371^?T 9RW ^nw^f?n3?n^T <»>i€if<n<fliTTT^f ^ 'feTst <Fai<^i< ^T 3tRW 3TT^?T S.B. HON»BLESHRI DftIRENDRA MISHRA. J. WRIT PBTITION (Art.i WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICi OFI PBTITIONBR Nemcharii Agrawal, 'i'ehsil Saj Presently 2271 N0. 3S23/2008 ,B 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION DIA Saria, Disjta-ict Raigarh (CG) RESPOND3BNTS 1. Stateof< ^ Agrawal, S/o Radhakishaa ^ged about 35 years, R/o Saria, ^aiigarh, Distdct Kaigarh (CG) Upsarpaach, Gram Paachayat, V^ElSUS phhattisgarh, Through (The Secretary, Deptt. Of| Panchayat & Rural Development, DKS BuiJjdmg, Majitralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. CoUectorj 3. 4. 5. 6. Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) Addition^l Collector, Raigarh, Gram P^ fhrough pistrict Raigarh (CG) |achayat, Saria, Distdct Raigarh, [he Sarpaach, Smt. JaJkumaii Daasena, Panch, Ward No.ll, (praxa Paachayat Saria, District Raigarh (| Smt. Paachay^ )G) Nu-tnaAa, Panch, Ward No. 16, Gram t Sada, District Raigarh (CG) Jr;: -HC—78 TS[ ^NK'1'4, ^xi1'y<i(o, f®i<ni'<-i<j,< *11*<CTI W*1ic»» '^200 ^H^T '<T^p (^qt^q^T) 3^?t "^T f<Tli<=h 'Wl 3TT^T'9RW '^nw^rf^T^n^T 2^ 7. 8. 9. Smt. Ba| Paachay) Subhasy Paachay) HeDisag^r, Paiich, Ward No.7, Graai Pajachay^t Saria, District Raigarh (CG) 10. Netraaai) Gram (CG) td Sidar, Paach, Ward No.18, P^achayat Saria, Distnct Raigarh 11. Trilochajli Graoi (CG) Patel @ Raju, Panch, Ward No.2, P^nchayat Saria, Distdct Raigarh Sitfc 12. Smt. Paachayl 8.7.2008 Shri Shashaak Thakur, cot Shri Satish Gupta, GA for 1 Shri Roop Naik, counsel fo] peti|tioner entertalaed This petition is directed 2008 (Annexure P/l) wherel^ rcjectuig fhe objectiou of fhe the rcview petition, has the oider dated 22nd April, 20 respondent No. 5 to 12 were de under Section 36(2) of the Pai] short'tlie Act, 1993'}. <=bl^41'1 'RT^ff ^f fSTst ^^K '^3'tRma?n^i sraiiti, Pao.ch, Wai'd No,19, Gram it Saria, District Raigarh (CG) Sidar, Pao.ch, Ward No.6, Gram rt Saria, District Raigarh (CG) Bai, Panch, Ward No.9, Gram iit Saria, Distnct Raigarh (CG) insel for the petitioner. hc Statc. : fhe respoiidents No. 5 to 12, agaio.st the order dated 30th June, leamed Additional CoUector regardiag xnaiatamability of fh.e petition and also stayed 08 (Annexure P/4) whereby tiie clared disqualified to be Panchas chayat Raj Adhuiiyam, 1993 (m -4- ^. ^:^t^.^ l; -£."" '3'^T ^|iq|<N1^, ^Tll<r|^(o, [®lcni<H^< *11*1CTI tl»»fN? -^200 3ff^?T XR^ ( yif^^) 3^^T^5T^W WTT 3i?I^T ^"RTcF wnw^f^^T^r Leamed counsel for fhe p| petition has been fUed on fhe gr^ were disqualified under Sectiof appUcation of the petitioner as ^ as they encroached upon the construct toilet even after one tlieni naaiely Trilochaa/ rcspond^ Paachayat from. his shop viclle respondents, iastead of pi( disquaUficatlon under Section ^ review petition beforc the Addi1|ional aad fhe saaie was entertaiaed wj review are limited. However, icj taken up by the respondents u|i 22.4.2008coiild not reviewed. On the otiier haad, leaj rcspondents No. 5 to 12 on c^ respondents were declared disqi| on tlie coniplaiat of tlie petition€| 26th Febmaiy, 2007 submitted ^ of Aunexure P/4 was pass^ respondents, who arc elected F^ and even without aflfordmg ohl^id^l'1 'HW^Tf ^f fs^ <F»l^l< '^3tfW3?T^T stitioner submits that fhe iiistaiit >und that rcspondents No. 5 to 12 a 36 of the Act, 1993 on the Iiey had iacurred disquaUfication govemnient land, they did not vear of fheir election and one of ;nt No.ll supplied raaterial to fhe Annexure P/4. The above eferring appeal against fhat ;6(4) of the Act, 1994, have filed Collector/pespondent No. 3 [thout jurisdiction. The grounds of fhe iastaat case, on the ground rcview petition, the order dated (med couusel appeariiig for tlie csjveat subraits that the aasweruig ^ali&ed by fhe Additional CoUector [r only ou the basis of report dated |y Naib Tehsildar, Sada. The order d wifhout aay notice to tlie jaiichas of Giain Panchayat--Saria tl^em. a reasonable opportunity of _^k_ 97KT^ ^k ^U||^>A}^ -[••S7197—3/2008—40,000. ^n^r^if^ri^ 1TO3Rn^T^qNT ^ TSf ^iqi^iq, y>Tl1'M<|(o, foKrll-M^ Nl<4dl ^qj<^—-—"••"""—"•"•"—•"••""""•^200 3H^T "q^7 (<ic'^q<i4) ^HW^ft^^I^T ^ hearing as couteaiplated in provj oftheAct, 1993. I have heard leanied cd fhrough the inaterial available oil Froin bare perusal of fhe c that the respondents No. 5 to 12 However, the above order was said Paachas only on tlie basis Saria. The above respondents Gram. Paiichayat, could not be d fhat order of Aunexurc P/4 was| respondents No, 5 to 12 on Tehsildar. obl^ld^fl'l ^w^ ^f 'f^zt <Fn^i< ^^tf^r^n^T so to sub-section (3) of Section 36 unsel for the parties aad gone record. rder ofAnnexure P/4 it is evident have been declared disqualified to be Panchas for vadous rcasoDls as detailed ia fhe said order. ^assed without aiiy notice to the of report of tlie Naib TehsUdar, being elected reprcsentatives of isqualified without afforduig theia an. opportunity of hearing and \^fbout conductiag proper enquiry. Leamed counsel for fhe petition|er has also not disputed fhis fact passed wifhout aay notice to the le basis of report of fhe Naib In the matter of Roshan 9>een Vs. Pivett Led1 the Hon'ble Suprcnie Court whUe dealmg \j?ith fh-e scope of uiterference ui exercise of supervisoiy add extra|ordinaiy jurisdiction iinder Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia, fit has been held tlius:- 1AIR2002SC33 yji^<^<M ^"NW ^ujt^^ 4;S/197—3/2008-—40,000. T^T ^i<Lii<n^ ^Ti1<-i4j<o, f®i<yii^^< *11NCTf CT»11C»» •W(,200 ^T^T 'q^^ (Tpt3^?) ^f^ ^i R»<i<=b ^ff 3T?^T 151RW l^nw ^ifi^ 3?i^¥[ T f 12. We are greatly disi^rbed by ihe irzseTzsitiviiy reflected in the impu^zed jizdgment rendered by the leanzed sitigle Ju^ge in a case where judiaal mindwould be temptQ\\i to utilisse cdlpossible legcd measures to impart fu^tice to a fnan mutilated so ouirageously by his Court nQn'suited him the Constitiztion is to thwart it (Vide State | JiA.dge^ Unnao and o(J| The very purpose of GM*lf<!1<fll ^IM<riT'^'fe11St <F^t$K '^ 3ffim 31T^T ^f^uel desiiny. Tfze High \n exerdse of a superuisory wid extraordifiafy ju\isdiction envisaged wzder Article 227 of ihe Co^stitution, Time and agcdn this Court has remind^d that the power conferred on ihe High oouH un(^er Articles 226 wzd 227 of ^dvance justic^ and not to |o/ Uttar Pradesh V. District \ters, (Am 1984 SC 1401)). ^uch wnstitutional powers being conferred on ihe\High Courts is thai no man should be subjeded 1p injtistice by violating the law. The look out oflfze High Cowi is, tfzerefore, not merely io pick out acxidemic arigel but t<\ resulted on acco^ interpretation of lau^ byproduct of an etror^epus view of law the High Court is not expecied name ofcorrecting ihe\ In the mstaat case, it i| disqualificatiou by the Additional ^ny error of law through an see whether injustice fias [nt of any erroneous If justice became the to erase suchjustice in the error of law. ^ s true that the order agaiast CoUector, under Section 36 (1) & (2) of the Act, 1993, is appealabl^ before fhe Director, Paiichayat aad the appeal is to be prefefred within 30 days. However, applying fhe prmciples of law lai<^ down ia the aforesaid judgnient in fhe present case aad consid' elected Panchas were reraoved fr^m theu' posts by the Additional ^nng fhe maiiner ia which fhe 9?TO^T ^^T g^n^T^<i^j^|j^ —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. '3~sr "'•ii^i<n^,yal<-i^<o, f^dl^ll,< *<11CT( »»<!<(» ••^200 ^T^T -q^? ( yifsq<i?) W^T^ ^Jcb ^T^^Ts^^Jeb "S^TW^f^T 3FH^T G CoUector without aav notice td> enquiry, fhe mipugned order, CoUector has entertained fhe rcspondents No. 5 to 12 and staj caU for iaterference on the prete^ 4 them aad without any proper jwhereby fhe learaed Additional iteview petition submitted by the ^ed fheir disqualification, does not ofcorrectiag the en'or oflaw. In fhe result, fhe petitioii to be disinissed and is stag itself. accord41gly ^euig devoid of substance is Uable i^igly, disniissed at tiie adniission CM<<I<yi<i1i 'Rn^ff ^ fs*<1 <Ffl^i< "^ ^fRm ^II^T Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 9TW^ ^T^ g^T^^ U^ri^Tlt^—FS/197—3/2008—40,000.