^^ c^^ fiIGH COURT OF CHHATrtSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRTTPETITION (2271 No. 4881 of2009 Smt. Mongra W/o Shri Pyarilal aged about 45 years, officiating Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Malda (B) Resident of at Post Malda (B) Tahsil Sarangarh Dist. Raigarii (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Thmis^i Seeretary Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Additional Collector, Raigaih, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional QfBcer (P)/Presiding QfiGcer Sarangarh Tahsil Saraagarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive QfBcer, Janpad Panchayat Qffice, Sarangarh- Tah. Sarangarh, Dist Raigarh (C.G.) 5. The Presiding Officer, Sushri Rajni Bhayt Naib Tahsildar, Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Ohurau Ram S/o Shri Sartfai (Saqianch) Gram Panchayat Malda (B) Block and Tahsil Sarmgarh, Dist.Raigarh(C.O.) 7. Chhabi Lal S/o Shri Baralram Up-Sarpanch 8. Kedamath S/o Brindavan Panch 9. Smt. Fulmati W/o Shri Sitaram Panch 10. Smt. Durga W/o Shri Bodhiram Panch 11. Chandramani S/o Shri Gunamati Paneh 12. Vishnudaval S/o Shri Bholaram Panch 13. Surit S/o Shri Bhagau, Panch 14. Bhagiratfai^/o Sadashiv Panch. 15. Omprakash S/o Shri Oouri Shankar, Paach 16. Smt. Rukmani W/o Shri Pitamber, Panch 17. Kamla Prasad S/o Shri Gopi Chand, Paneh, all ^F^ 3/-a"-/ ."I 2 resident of Petitoner No. 07 to 17 are residing at Malda (B) Tahsil Sarangarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) WWT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrrUTIQN QF INDIA SB: Hon'bte Shri Sattsh K. AsnBioM^J. Present: ShriR.S.Patel.Advocateforthepetitioner. Shti Shashaiik Tliakur, Panel Lawyer for Ae State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 318t day of Aiigust, 2009) By this petition, Ihe petitioner ^eks to challenge the legality and validit;' ofthe order dated 17 August, 2009 (ATmexure P/l) pa-ssed ia Case No. 43-A-89/2008-09 (Churau Ram v. Chhabilal & Others), by the respondent No. 2, i.e. Additional Collector, Raigarh, whereby the application filed by the respondent No. 6 herein under section 35(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code, 1959') read with Order 9 Rule 4 ofthe Code ofCivil n-(X»dwe, (for short 'CPC') for restoration of the referaice case which was disniissed for waut ofprosecution on 10 Au^ist, 2009, vras allowed and the interim order granted in &VOUT oftiie re^oiident No. 6 on 25 June, 2009, was ordered to continue. The brief facts. as projected by the petitiona-, are that oa 14 May, 2009, tiie respondeut No. 6, who was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Malda (B), made a reference under sectkm 21(4) ofthe Pauehayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993) before the Additional Collector against tiie order dated 7th May, 2009 passed in Revenue Case No. 1 l/A-89/2008-2009 by Ihe Sub Divisional Qfficer, Sarangarh, whereby the respondent No. 6 was removed from the post of Sarpanch, pursuant to tfae no confidence ^,fif—ecSfSt. i-is. '^&.i.?-,. "l'»s8t ^ Vll> 3. motion carried out by tiie panchas of Gram Panchayat, Malda (B). The said reference was registered as Case No. 43/A-89/2008-09 and was fixed for hearing on 18th June, 2009. On 251b June, 2009, the order dated 7 May, 2009 passed by the respondent No. 3 was stayed by the respondent Na 2. The case was again fixed for hearh% on 10 August, 2009. Since none appeared on behalfofrespondent No. 6, fce ease was dismissed for waid of prosecution. Thersafter, on 12 August, 2009, tiie petitioner was appointed as officiating Sarpanch by the respondent No. 3. Cta the said date, i.e. on 12 August, 2009,the respondent No. 6 filed an applieation under section 35(2) offhe Code, 1959 and Order 9 Rule 4 of 1he Code, 1908 for restwatiwi of Ihe reference case. Vide the impugned order dated 17 August, 2009 (Aimexure P/l) tiie reference ease filed by the respondent No; 6, which was disniissed for want ofprosecution on 1(^1 August, 2009, was ordered to be restored and Ifae interim order granted in favour of the respon^nt No. 6 on 25 June, 2009, was ordered to coiitinue. Thus, this petition. Shri Patel, leamed counsel appearing fw the petitioner sabmits that thc respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to entertain a reference under seetion 21(4) ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993. Shri Patel farther sulmits 1hat the provisions of section 35(2) ofthe Code, 1959 and the Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC are not attracted, as the case is govemed under tfie provisions ofthe Adhmiyam, 1993. It is further argued by Shri Patel tiiat the reference case ought to have been decided withm 30 days of its filing and even after lapse ofabout two moinths, Ihe aiid case has not beea decided. Shri Patel also submite that the petitioner ought to have been issued notice before passing the impugned order. ^ 4. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, pemsed the pleadings and documents appendedthereto. 5. From perusal of the impupied order, it appears that alongwitii the application for restoration, the respondent No. 6 filed an aflHdavit stating that on account ofhis ill health, he could fmt appear before flie respondent No. 2. la support of the said contention, the respondent No. 6 also filed the medieal prescriptions. From perusal of the said documettf, it appears that the respondeirt No. 6 feH 31 from 8 August, 2009 and on account ofthat, he was not in a position to attend the proceedings on 10 ,'togust, 2009. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the personal difBculties of the respondent No. 6, the respondent No. 2 has ri^tfly allowed the application oftfae respondent No. 6 and restored the reference case to its original number. 80 far as other points on merit are concemwl i.e. competence offhe Additional Collector to entertain a reference under section 21(4) of fhe Adhiniyam, 1993 and further decision of the reference within the stipulated time is concemed, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the issue before the concemed auihwity, if so advised, as the matter is still pending consideration before the respondent N®.2 6. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not fmd any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The same is just, proper and needs no interference. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disinissed. No order asto eosts. Arait Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge