IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE 'AT BP ILASUR (CHEXTISG‘ARH zI‘) wan PETxmloN No.2 @é“ . OF 20%- v q? ’ 7 «‘«9 $° W' Budnwar Singn,Ason of Kartik.Ram, e .?ancnayat Secretary Gram. Devlapatn, Tan' Kartala dist Korba (C G) PETITONER: I vs. / State of Cnnattisgara Tnrougn- ./ \ Secretary Pancnayat & Welfare Department D K.Bnawan,RaLpur (C G) Tan 2. Sarpancn, Kartala dist Gram Pancnayat Korba(C G5 Devlapatn, . Cnief Executive officer Janpat ancnayat Kartala, dist. Korba(C G) / y wRn: PETITION-Immi ARTICLE; 226$] r22? OF rim CONsTImTION 0F: wnn 3 » HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 282 of 2003 Petiu'oner Budhwar Singh. Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and Others. \ st for order on /& §uly, 2006 Sd/— Sadsh K. Agnihoti Judge k J ’? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 282 of 2003 Petitioner Budhwar Singh. Versus Respondents State of Chhatu'sgarh and others. SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shn' Shailesh Ahuja, counsel for the pen'tioner. . Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate for the Iespondents No. 1 and 3. Shn' Sunil Sahu, counsel for the Iespondent No.2. O R DER ( m *hJuly, 2006) 1. The present petition nled under the Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 26.8.2002 (Annexure P—5) passed by the Collector, Korba, holding that the resolution dated 3.4.2002 passed by the Gram Panchayat to Iemove the petitioner n'om the post of Secretary, (3mm Panchayat was legal and'valirl. The order dated 21.4.2000 of Shri 'I‘iharuram, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Devlapath, Janpad Panchayat Kartala, Disuict Korba, mmoving the petitioner-mm the post of Secretaxy Gmm Panchayat, Devlapath, is‘ also impugned. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi, vide order dated 10.4.1999. Thereaiter, the petitioner was appointed as Secretary under Section 69 (1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Second proviso to Section 69 (1) of the Adhiniyam provides for bar on appointment of Ielah’ve of any k o$cer bearer of the concerned Gram Panchayat on the post of Secretary of Gram Panchayat. Admittedly, the petitioner was the younger brother of then, Sarpanch, Ramsai. Having come to know : ; \ that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Secmtaxy was illegal. The Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat, in its resolution dated 17.4.2000 (Annexule R- 1) resolved to remove the petitioner 00m the post of Secretary on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary was illegal and void ab-im'h‘o. The petitioner, being aggrieved, nled an Appeal before the Sub Divisional 0&er, Korba, in Appeal No. 25-A-89 A (15)]99-2000. The Sub Divisional 0&cer by order dated 8.1.2001 dismissed the’Appeal on the gmund that the Court of Sub Divisional O$cer has no jurisdich'on to entertain the Appeal under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. Thereafter, the Appeal against the said order was preferred to the Collector. The Collector by order dated 26.8.2002 came to the conclusion, that the petitioner was the brother of the then Sarpanch Ramsai and under Section 69 (1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam any person who happens to be near relation of Sarpanch cannot be appointed on the post of Panchayat Secretary. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 3, submits that the petitioner can continue as Panchayat Karmi, notwithstanding the fact that he happens to be brother of the then Sarpanch but cannot continue as Secretary,Panchayat under the Provisions of Section 69 (1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. He further submits that the Appellate Authority is not the Collector but the Sub Divisional O$cer under Rule 3 of the Panchayats (Appeal and . Revision) Rules 1995, Table A. Learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat submits that the appointinent of the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary was had and 3 /:; 2 illegal as he was the brother of the then Salpanch, contraxy to the provisions of Rule 69 (l) of the Adhim'yam. Having heani learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records it is evident under Section 69 (1) of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993, second proviso to reads as under:~ and provisions of law, " 69. Appointment of Secretary and Chief Executive O$cer~ (1) The State Government or the plescn’bed authority may appoint a Secretaxy for a Gram Panchayat or group of two or mom Glam Panchayats: Explanation—for the pmpose of this sub~section the sister, expression husband,‘wife, “relative” shall son, daughter, mean father, father-in—law, mother, mother- brother, in-law.” in-law, bromer-in—law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter~ connaxy to the provisions of Rule 69 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhim'yam, 1993. Hence’ the order dated 21.4.2000 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Devlapath, Janpad Panchayat Kartala, District Korba, confirmed by order dated 26.8.2002, passed by the Collector, Korba, is legal and v‘ah'd. Accomingly, the petih'on is dismissed. No order as to costs. " Sci/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge