:33 gsq'^TFn^T, ®Tf|y'l<o,ist^l^y ^Wvtt *NI<* ^(y ^g-jsr Wi, 200 an^?r '<ra% (^f^B^w^ 'VI ftlW ^Ti"^)^ ^*1 ^9^ '?RIRT( ^ifta CT^I PETITIONER: RESPQNDENTS; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Smtj Reldia Devi Kaushik, W/o Shri Ram Nar^yan Kaushik, aged about 28 years, Sar(janch (Terminated), Gram Panchayat Kur^li, Development Btock Takhatpur, District Biia^pur (CG). -Versus- Sta^e of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Pan]chayat and Social Wslfare, D.K.S. Bhav/an, Mar|tralaya, Raipur (Chhatti^iarh). Dire|ctor, Panchayat and Social Welfare, lattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). (Petition under Articte Sinale Bench: Hon' 8-1-2TO8 Heard Shri Devesh Verma. Singh, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ^raferitTwiaf •if.lt^t•^RSK ^raiRinan^l sctor, Bilaspur, Through Additional sctor, Bilaspur (CG). ChKi Colll Coll^ Sub| Divisional Officer (Revenue), Village Kota (Kai|gi Road), District Bilaspur (CG). Chi^f Executwe Officer, Janpad Panchayat Takfiatpur, District Bilaspur (CG). Up-^arpanch and Panches, ©ramPanchayat Kur^lj, Block Taldiatpur, District Bilaspur (CG). 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Me Shri JusUce L.C. Bhadoo counsd for the petitioner & Shri ftadeep .Lfia^B^^ '3 3^T ^l^lci-4, WTfl'M'IS, Isl^l'yy W^vW sb^l* "^ sn^r 13% (iyf'i«i<a) J^t-. By this petition under Art|cl petitioner, who is a Sarpanch of Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, has order dated 11-12-2007 passed No.375/A-89(15)/2006-07 whereb^- partifes vacated the ex parte stey the Sub Divisional Ofncer and conducting enquiry against the Officer/Prescribed Authority orderefl 40 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Adhirvyam, 1993"). Against thatj appeat before the Additional dismissed the appeal filed by the revision before the Director, pending revision granted ex parie respondent Up-Sarpanch filed an of the record vide impugned ordei] stay. Perusal of the record complaint againstthe petttioner. Executive Officer at the instence report, in whieh certain irregularitie|s Based on that the Prescribed Auth< Sarpanch under, Section 40 ofthe dismlssed bythe Additional CoUectc|r shoWs Oik els °fci<if<rf4!-< 'wraf 4js^ AtgK i?3ffim sn^i Artlcle 227of the Constitution of India the (pram Panchayat Kureli, Devetopment Block q^iestioned the legality and correetness of the tjy the Director, Panchayat in revision case leamed Director after hearing both the jiranted by him against the oider passed by the AddiUonal Collector whereunder after mi^conduct of the petitioner theSub Dh/isional 1 for removal of the petitioner under Section Gi|am Swarai Adhiniyam, 19^ (for short "the order, the pefitioner herein preferred an Coflector, who vide order dated 11-7-2007 ^etBioner. Now the petltioner has prefeired Pan|chayat, who vide order dated 12-9-2007 ^tay and call for the record. Thereafter the ^pplication for vacating stay. After perusal the Directpr, Panchayat, has vacated the that the Up-Sarpanch of vfltage filed a which enquiry was conducted by the Chief (?f the Prescribed Auttiority and sutmiitted were found in preparing the muster roll. (rtty removed the petitioner from the post of ^ldhlniyam, 1993. The appeal has also been 1'lt 'ysst ^w^, '.si-^v'is, Rt^iy^i }^-C&^ itTOCT-"*^t*" "^ an^r'»;!% C^f^?w) 'FRIIWdfta 3If^( In view of the above, 1 do the Director, Panchayat, in refusinjg passed by the Prescribed Author|y also the appellate order dismissir^ no substance in this writ petitionj However, since the petitioner Panchayat, is directed to decid^ within a period oftwo months from| the Consequently, I.A.No.1 artplication disposedof. <<>i''it<'t4!-i ^ftKS if.ft^ <lo<$]< ^siRnsii^i ^vst fmd any jurisdk^ional error oommitted by to stay the effect and operaUon of the order under Section 40 the Adhiniyam, 1993 as th®appeal flted by the petitioner. There is Accordingly, the writ pettion is dismissed. already preferred revision, the DireGtor, the same as early as possible preferably date of reeeipt of a copy ofthis orcler. for grant of interim relW stands hte Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ».