BEFORETHEHON'BLEHIGMCOURTOFGHHATnSGARH^T'"" BILASPUR (C.G.) Wrif Petition (S) No. ^f) /200^ PFTITIOMER ^y^ ^^^•/' ^ RESPQlNDENTS rf^ 'Ben Kumar Banjare^ son of Shri Bhangu Ram Satnami, aged about 40 years, Ex-Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Gidhawa, R/o. Village Gidhawa, PO Nagodha, Tah. Navagarh, Distf. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhatfisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of PanchqYqt and Rural OevetQipmeht Dau Kqlyqn Singh Bhawan, Raipur (G.G.j _ EK- .:^-/ \v f ^ :. ' ; : ' • ' . ' ': t:^ ^^ AV^'^^ 2 D'rector Panchayat,3iau Kalyan ^ ' • ' ' • • .. '"'' . " • . . - Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The CQllector, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4.' The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Karmi (Secretary / Sachivj, Gram Panchayat - Gidhawa, Tah. Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.): 5. Dharmendra Koshley, Panchayat Kanni / Secretary, Gram PanchayatGidhava, PO Nagdha, Tah. Nawagarh Distt. Durg (CG) 6. Gram Panchayat - Gidhawa, through - Sarpanch, Panch Ram Sahu, son of Shri Bdis^afchu aigegi^ 'f 1 IB INSi^ » IIW. f''y; ^KS^ ^^>! abou^ 60 yedrs, resident of village Gidhawa, PO Nagc(dha, Tah. «-^ Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^f'^v WRIT PETITION UffiiER ARTICLE62^0F THF CONSTITUTION OF ^.' ?^ "4i<<i<'i<i, 8)til'H-i|<D, fq<niyy —^l.M.l..;.-'"3.3'l,l , *IINdl *^|ch""'"rC'?'" """""""•••-"•^200^ sf^v TraqT (ijcji^«(<^(T) TOnw^fersn^i •Wlfe^•W^l tf fS^I <R>f(^R i?3iRiH3n^T >.B. Hon'Me Shri Justice N.K. •>?. ^a^ala Shri Bharat Rajput, Advoci Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Pan No. 1 to3. The instant petition is 12.02.2004 (Annexure P/3), pass appeal case No. 165/B-121/20, respondent No. 5 herein was allo directed to be reinstated on thel Panchayat, Gidhawa, Tah. Nawa^rh The brieffacts ofthe case was remoyed from the post ofP( Gram Panchayat dated 18.08.02. his place vide order dated 01.11| Gram Paachayat Gidhawa. Theiff respondent No. 5 agaiast his r^i Directdr, Panchayat in the year 3( who was then working as Panchat Shri Bharat Rajput, lea( petitjoner, submits that the petitf garwai |:e for the petitioner 11 Law'yer for the [irected against the order dated ?d by the Director, Panchayat, in P2-03, whereby, the appeal of wed and the respondent No. 5 was post of Panchayat Karmi, Gram arh, District Durg. re that, when the respondentNo. 5 mchayat Karmi vide resolution of lien the petitioner was appointed in 02 (Annexure P/l), passed by the safter, the appeal prefeiTed by the moval order was allowed by the 004 without hearing the petitioner •'at Kanni. ned counsel appeariag for 'ner was a necessary party in the • (—s -^ •I,, 'yve'^ "••"^s^ XI-HG—78 dTCi '*ii<(ici<), ytil'y'Ko, [nldiyy ,S 3 II "wmr^tiw"";y'••"••-—-•••--^ 200^ 3i1^?[Tra^' (Tjc<ij»<^tT) Wtnwnfei 3iit?i --Z <M*i[<rtql<T 'RFI^ff ^f^^ Xf^^R ^? sifiiT sn^s ^.- appeal preferred by the respond^nt No. 5 befor& the Director Panchayat and therefore, the impjugned order dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure P/3), deserves to be set a^ide. Having heard learned couns|el appearing for the petitioner, having perused the record, I am of|the considered opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed at motion stage, firstly on the ^round that this order was passed ii^ the year 2004 and the petition is filed on 01.10.2007 and the explan^tion given on this delay is that, the petitioaer, being necessary part^ was not arrayed in that petitioii as party respondent due to this del4y has been occurred, but it is no where said that the petitioner was |not aware about the order dated 12.02.2004, so the petition sufifers 4'om delay and laches and as suclr desen'es to be dismissed. Secondy; admittedly, the respondent No. 5 was validly appomted as Pancha|yat Kanni before appointment of the petitioner and at the time ofpe(:itioner's appointment in place of respondent No. 5, fhe appeal prefej-red by the respondent No. 5 was pending and in that appeal the p^titioner was not required to be arrayed as respondent. Therefore,| it is not correct to say that the petitioner was aecessary part^' (n the .appeal preferred by the. respondent No. 5 against fhe Gr^m Panchayat. The petitioner's appointment was against fhe post |from which the respondent No. 5 7,1 !l'll'';^'ErR)'Bi-»T 's if:SiSl;%!6i-EBm .e:i•—^ 1 // fe .,s-i!^XI-HG—78 ^w Sahj T^^SH^^ ^6 '3^'^iiKri'f, s>Ti|^<i(o, Rlcfiy^ WWl *«|ch-^^••-•••••^^-.......^^Q^ 3n^r1i^7(1pf3»i^) TO!TW1:fe3T]t?T ^PrfwN Wl?if <f fe^t TRR^IT ^? 3iRn •aiit?! was earlier removed and later ton reinstated and the moment respondent No. 5 was reinstated, ^ie appointment of petitioner goes and therefore, there is no infinnity or illegality committed by the Director, Panchayat, in passing th^ order dated 12.02.2004, without arraying petitioner as respondent .| It is weil settled principle oflaw that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction underjArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India, should refrain itself from i^terfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in suchjcases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional errojr is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the preseu^ case. In view of facts situation 4>f the case, I am of the considered opinion that tliis petition deserve^.to be and is accordingly dismissed summarilv. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 1~« t -:» •Btl ^ r '-'i ^11^-.^:!