5°- ..^^^ ^ffol- IN THE HIGH COIMT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. N0. ^-&5€ /2003 PETITIONER Smt. Savitri Devi, W/o. Hridayanand Kashyap, aged about 34 years, Sarpaach Gram Paae&yat, Bade Temari, Block Basna, P.S. & Tah.- Basna, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) .^fKis-^.:i-^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS R£^i^^^ Cieikto&.Q-8ilasPU( \^--' 1^^^ '-•'ls^'' 3-'''<<ffy._ .•••* ...<^>o7!-' ^.^f^- ^- A»a -^yy ?L:.^' <^IA--" l^ &<9S,^ 1. State ofChhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Collector Maliasamund (C.G.) 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Competent OfGce (Panchayat) Mahasamund (C.G.) 4. ChiefExecutive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 5. Tahsildar, Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 6. Sahnu Patel, S/o. Rushi Patel, aged about 35 years, WardNo.3,Panch (Disqualified Panch) 7. Smt. Sundermoti, W/o. Lakhan Singh, Ward No.7, Panch (Disqualified Panch), Gram-Bade Temri »:*Se?-'<j ^fcs^y •^^'^' '• ^' Q"' .^ 8. Smt. Sumitra, W/o. Jagdish, WardNo.8,Panch, aged about 40 years, Gram-Chhote Temri 9. Smt. Chanchla, W/o. Garud Singh, aged about 28years,WardNo.l5, Panch, Gram-Jhurpali 10.Smt.GeetaBai,W/o. Khaneshwar Prasad Kashyap, aged about 38 years, Ward No.4, Panch Il.Uttam, S/o. Ghansiram, aged about 50 years, WardNo.l,Panc6 12.Khirapdev, S/o. Manikram, aged about 50 years, WardNo.2, Panch 13.Govind, S/o . Yudhishthir, aged about 59 years, Ward No.5, Panch 14.Maheshram Ganda, S/o. aged about 35 years, Ward No.6, Panch 15.Mphammed Bashir, S/o. Nabi Mohammed, aged about 27 years, WardNo.9,Panch 16.Mimeshwar, S/o. Dhanurjay aged aboyt 60 years, Ward No. 10, Panch, Gram-Chhote Temri •^'^•y[sy^^^s 17.Chitrasen, S/o. Kirtan, aged about 33 years, WardNo.ll,Panch, Gram-Chhote Temri 18.8mt. Jamila, W/o. Majidakhm, aged about 40 years, WardNo.l2,Panch, Gram-Chhote Temri 19.Lachhan, S/o. Dafedar Gond, aged about 60 years, WardNo.I3,Panch, Gram-Jhurpali ZQ.Laxman, S/o. Parem Gond, aged about 37 years, WardNo.I4,Panch, Gram-J-hurpali 21.Bahadur, S/o. TeganPanka, aged about 45 years, WardNo.I6,Panch, Gram-Ihurpali WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Xl-HC—'. sn^qff'f^fe T. ;f 3TT^?I 'aRN? ^ 'S^ -41'41d^, ®t)l<H'l<o,fq<tl'H'j,< —..v'/.;.P.:....rsf.o.;..^.<?..^./.0^- RW^"""""'"""'"""""->-""""/"'""^200 311^1'q?^ (lclijsf^q) Petitioner by Sm.t. Renu Kocher, Advocate. Shri Ranbir Singb, Gov1|. Advocate takes notice on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 5, The petitioner tias pr^ferred ttus petition under Artlcle 226/227 ofthe.Constitutlon4 dated 20.10.2003 passcd ^ PEinchayat Casc No. 32,/A-89| Collector has disinissed die did uapugned order. The only grievance of panchas who participated in were not niember of fhe Paiic] Smt. Sumitra (Respondent No. of paitch and other two paacl(.as chi)Eiid41'i 'RT^ff ^ t^Es(r <[<q^.i< ^aiRliTatl^fT f India beuig aggrieyed by the order v thc CoUcctor Mahasaiuiuid ici of 2002 - 2003 whcrcbv lcamcd ^pute raised before hitn regarding no- confidence aiotion passed ^ainst fhe petitioner by the Grara Paiichayat- Badetemri on 29,9.2003. I have heard leamed co^iisel for the parties and perused the ^be petitioner herein is that fhree flie laeetiag of no-confideuce inotion h|ayat for the reason that one of tiiem .$) had already resigned from the post namely Sundenaoti. (Respondent -!- VT_UT~1-'?'? .A.i-ns^-. ^^^^^^ -f^'t"<f/ T^^iraRR, 's^ftwra, fawwy ly IHWII (h*liq» No.7) and Sahau Patel (R^spondent No.6) mcuiTed disqualification i»il»<f<'l41-l^INcff'? teA Ti^RgR ^ariiOTSii^r an^T^I 1^W3li?I ww an^iwiim^ifta on account of hav~tng inore than two cliildren. A perusal of the itapugned order passed by the leamed Conector reveals that as p^r tfae Govt. record there was no vacancy ta the Paacliavat i.e. Cfaeri Suinitra was faUen vacan othcr ta'o pcrsons on acco! having niorc than two child order tHa.1 eveii the petitio was no record stiowing that tbe post of on accoiint of her resignation and of jnt "f thcir incumng disquaUfication for icn, It bas furtlicr bccn nicntioncd in thc Ler lias not fu.mislied aiiv doczLtiientaiv evidence, which shovys tJliat these three posts vvere vacQnt on account of fhe reasons tnentioned above. Even todav leanied counsel for the petitioner 1s not able to sho\p aiiv docuiaent that three posts of panchas hat^ failen. vacant for fhe said reason stated by leamed counsel for tV^e petitioner. Leamed counsel for the petitioaer is not able to i|aise any point, which may show any iBegaRty or uifirmity ia the ^rder, passed by Uie leanied CoUector. Therefore, in view of Ijie above I do not find any substaiice ia Siis petitioa wliich is liable 1o be disniissed and is disinissed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo