^ \ •o- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.Ji WRIT PE TITIO N N0.6^-50F 2004 PETITIONER .^T^. ,.-^^- ^s^ ^y .••'^\ft:/' ^'^ t. ^' v^>v. ^y^-- ^. /' <**i^J Mukesh Kumar, S/o Slm Gangadhai Satnani, Aged about 34 years, R/o VLUage Chhote Sipat, P.S. : Malkharoda, Tehsil & Disttict: Janjgii Champa, (C.G.). 'y RESPONDENTS \_0 VERSUS- 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Tltiough : Secretaiy, Depaitment of Panchayat, D.K.S. Building Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dii'ector, Panchayat, Government ofChhattisgarh, Raipur(C.G-). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNDJA r- XI-HC—78 -y^ ^T^TRW, ^flw%, f^rray ^^..^.'.K.'..^:..S^5.j.^o^ '^P^T'9PW^s""'su""'"""""""~""'""/"'"m""r'^ 2( aqi^T^q? ^l^T^Tl^W ^SjT 3?j^l ^qj^ t^TW^t^^t^ J05.04.200^ Shri Shivraj Singh, Couns^l for the petitioner. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. foj I.A.No. 1876/2004 for urge^it hearing is aUowed. Heard. Counsel fbr the petitioner ^ubmitted that the petitioner |vho was declared elected Meml^r of Jila Panchayat, Janjgir lampa, on a complalnt made ^y one Mannulal Sidhar, that petitioner has been convict^d for the offence punishable tinder Section 302 read wifh imprisonment the Director Pancl^ayat has started proceedings disqualify him. The contentio^ ^ ft^ ^^fe?^i^r the State on advance copy. Section 34 of IPC for life is that Mannulal Sidhar has io ilglil al all lo make tlie comp|aiiiL as il was llie Slatc case. Coiinsel for the petiti^ner has not joined the implamant Mannulol Sidhar ^s party-respondent in this stition. It is submitted that the} matter is pending before 1.. . ^ . . — . 1 pirector, Paachayat, Raipur. Section 36 (2) ofthe Panc&ayat RsJ Adhiaiyam under ^yhich the proceedings have be^n initiafed is relevant here ^nd quote below : ^ T -3^r ^t^ld^, ^Tl1^l4t(o, f®l(<ll<-l*l< }? ^n^'eii «»*<icf» ••^200 ^^i^v (^^^) 3?n^T^>Tft^N? WTW^TW-lN) %^!7W ^te? 3^?T -2-" <^!^i<rit^^ "RTTO^ ^ ft^ ^T???T ^3?R[H^ST beiag ofBce bearer of be eligible to be an office- 36. Disquallflcatioa f^i PaachtSyat.-(l) No person sh^l bearer of Panchayat who— (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx "(2) Ifany pereani having l|een elected as on ofiice bearer ofPanchayat:— (a) subsequently becom^s subject to any of tfae mentioned (b) disquallfication arei such disqualific^ being removable is n^) acccpts fcmploymcn^ a^inst the Panchay4t in sub-section (1) tion is not removable or >t removed; as lcgal practitioncr (c) absents himself fijoxn meetings of the Panc^iayat does not attend hatfl held during the peric^d the leave of the Panc^iayat; ihToe consecutive ; or its Committee or the nuniber ofmeetings of sax months without he shall, subject to the pro' cease to be such become vacant: ^slons of sub-sectton (3), bedirer and his office shall ati G^ Pixwided tliat wliere an office bearer to the himsetf under clause (c) inform fhe appUcont of application within a period "9. appliuatioii is uiade by Panc|aayat for leave to absent an|d the Panchayat fails to ite decision on fhe 1 of one month fix>m fhe XI-HG—78 I* ^^ '^T^IIcT^, ^tft?P7?, t^TRf^: Y *lt*l?18 ^iW^) (^i'3^^) ^i^i^i^t^rN' 7^?^T^l^^IW i^T^^^^ri^r - ^ ^- ^T date of receipt of the app by any one. The fact that tihu ication, the leave applied for, shaU be deemed to h|ave been granted by the Panchayat. The petitioner was cc|nvicted by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge^ Sakti, Bilaspjiir ia Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1992 on 9tfa June 1994. Th^ tactum of conviction is not disputed, It ie eubinitted fhat Ipiereofter the applicant applied for grant of baU. He was relea^ed on baU. Subsequently, only the seritence has been suspe|ided. However in view of the conviction under section 302/134 IPC, the disqualification has occurred. Such disqualificati^n can be brought to the notice applicant has been convicted uiider seclioii 302/34 IPC i^ iiot dispuled. Tliis caii be broiight to the notice to the a Mannulol Sidhar has done if;. It cannot be soid that the proceedlngs started by the a^ithorities cannot contlnue. In fact, it was the duty of the p| have pointed out regarding hi^ have suppressed this fact. H^ conviction and when a citize4 the Court and the authoritiesj ithonties and the complainant etitioner hmiself who ought to conviction and he ought not to having suppressed the fact of' has brought it to the notice of are proceeding with the matter in accordance with the provijsions and ha.ve given notice to him^ there is nofhing wrong. XI-HC—78 -3^ ^-{^T^N, •^^FI^, t^TOy (g) -^T ?T^T ^Tt^T °iT^N -^t' TlTq^f -^ ^ '^o?fW^3TCTI Tn the opinion of this C(|»iirt, no case is made 01it for interference by this Court |for exercising extraordixiary j jmlsdlction under Artfdes 22^/227 of ttie Constitution of 1 India. J There is no meait in fhe ^e^tion. The petitton faUs and is dismissed. The petition fails aod |s dlsmissed. Coneequenffy, M.W.P.No.761/2004 for interii4 reUefstands disposed of. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge m, .^^