•T' -l- CT THB mcaff <X>URT OF JUDICATORB CHHATTISGARH AT BQASPOTKC.G.l W.P.NFO. 3/^ '/2006 S-'Ba-' PBTITIONER ^^" ^<L.^ '>*"" RESPONDENT Sxnt. Jaya Singh W/o Shri Tejbhan Singh Aged about 38 R/o Village Dariina, Ainbikapur Distt. rguja (C.G.) VERSUS The Villagers Navapara Kala Through : Ram Sagar S/0 Chanaru aged about 40 years, R/0 Village Navapara Kala, Tahsil Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (One of the Complainant) PETITIOH imDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE COWSTmTTION OF IWDIA ^V.T^; XI-HC-78 *11HWI 9>W*l Tsg' 'i|i'i|ii'i''i, »Tnu'is,Riowy ^•^..^^^ 341^1 W<h (*l?^ctS>liT) sn^TcfiT^ro craTM^isb^i* ??gTW^a'3ii^i' *i''<Icf41-f tiit«nTfftecS<l'']+<;i< ^isrf^lTSn^T .>.. 30-S-200S Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, By this writ petition under petitioner has questioned legatit^ dated 21-6-2006 passed by the the order daled 30-5-2006 pass( rejected the application of the pel into the altegalions against the pe1| 26-1-2001 whteh disentitles hertol Brief facts ieading to filing are that the villagers of Gram Pa| against the petitioner before the| Sarpanch of the village, has gav< comptaint was registered by Ihe the Tehsildar, Ambikapur {o give h|i third chitd, whereas the Naib Tp Collector, submitted report on objection on 25-4-2006 with a pral by a fair person on the ground thaf to subm'rt the report, because, the the Naib Tehsiidar, Darima has petitioner submitted copy of the against Ihe husband of1he petition^ the petitioner, rejected the applica) however, ordered the matter to] arguments. Against this order, thi the Director, Panohayat. The Dir there is no justification for grantin^ counse! for the petitioner. lArticle 227 of the Constitulion of India, the f, propriety and correctness of the order (pirector, Panchayat, in the revision against id by the Cotlector, Surguja, whereby he litioner regarding ordering for fresh enquiry ptioner that she gave birth to third child after ;ontinue as Sarpanch. rf this writ petition, as mentioned in para 5, ichayat: Navapara Kala made a comptaint Collector that the petitioner, who is the birth to third ohild after 26-1-2001. The tollector and the Coltector issue memo to |is report on the petitioner about the birth of ihsildar who was not authorized by the '44-2006 to which the petitioner moved an ^er that a fresh enquiry report be oalled for the Naib Tehsildar, Darima, has no power poliector, authorized the Tehsildar and that Ipersonal enmity with her husband. The '.i.R. lodged by Naib Tehsildar, Darima, i^r. The Collector, after hearing counsel for [ion regarding caliing for the fresh enquiry, be fixed on 20th June, 2Q06, for finat petilioner herein moved a revision before ijeclor, Panchayat, after hearing, held thaf stay on the interim order and the matter 744 XI-HC-78 sn^TqiTfs-ira; aqT3n^Tsh*l N Soma *<1*1WI sh*l)ch T5? ^ll^lcl'1), ®Tn+f'IS,RlCll^y ^.^.^•s^^/..^ 200^ 341^1 4sl* ('ic<l31i««.dT) ?RnW^ferw^T ^ hbs liberfy will be considered at the time of final order passed by Ihe Col!ector| 1 have heard learned counst The petitioner has not been| invoking the jurisdiclion of this Cot India. The Coliector, Surguja, petitioner for ordering for conductijig Naib Tehsildar, who conducted th^ of the petitioner, as once the Na| husband of the petitioner. Mere| against the husband of the petitij ground for bias. Moreover, the report and the petitioner is at liberfy whether any procedural impropif Tehsildar in conducting the enquiry] its merit, in accordance with law.| grounds for rejection of the report establish that the report of the N4 factual situation by citing those insl bias also that the Naib Tehsildar against the husband ofthe petition( Therefore, 1 do not find ai passed by the Director, Panchayat liab!e to be dismissed and it is Consequently, M.(W.)P.f disposed of. hearing of the appeal/revision against the here|iy qiraf^'fN'inwffff teA Tfesp ^sri^iTsn^T for the petitioner, on admission. ab!e to raise the case before this Court for jrt under Article 227 of the Constitution of simpty rejected Ihe application of the of fresh enquiry on the ground that the enquiry, has enmity against the husband b Tehsiidar lodged the F.I.R. against the lodging of report by the Naib Tehsildar >ner /pso facto cannot be taken to be a ^laib Tehsiidar has already submitted the to challenge that report on its merit and |ety has been committed by the Naib 1 and the Coitector will decide the matter on The petitioner is at liberty to raise the lof the Naib Tehsildar and if she is able to |ib Tehsildar is not fair or contrary to the [ances, the petitioner can raise the point of |has given this report on account of bias tr. |y ground for interference with the order The petition is devoid ofmerit, same is dismissed, in limine. and I.A.No.6266/2006 stand NoJ2435/2006 Sdi- L.C. BhsEtQO JudQe