^\ ."'I -HC—78 ^U^-rW^f, ^WW, Rl^K-fy MWv{{ sbMleb gi^r xiw (4df.j,8i<tT) aii^iw K.-V* | ^TS^T .3TR^T SbHicb •^irar'Hfta sn^r HIGH COURT OF CHHATT W.P. (227) No.2^50 OFlZQOS Pres^nt: PETITIONER Appellant/ Plaintiff RESPONDENTS Non-Applicants v s Dht Ag^ Cht Vill LaD) bu^ Paifc Rafl Stal Sed DKj (cd Th< (CG Th< (CG The (Re. Rai iMr. PKC Tiwari, Sr. Advoca Advo{:ate for the petitioner. |Mr. Arun Sao, GA for the St +i'><trt''i1-< 'treif •tf.fe1^'^re^H ^'3TRilf3TI^[ SGARH AT BILASPUR inush Kumar Jangde (Satnami) d about 27 years, son of Shri itu Ram Jangde, age Devpuraghat, our and Small resident of occupatlon- Scale retail iness, Tahsil and Janpad ;hayat Chhuikhadan, District landgaon (CG) e of Chhattisgarh, through : •etary, Department of Panchayat, Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Director (Panchayat), Raipur Collector, District Rajnandgaon Sub Divisional enue), Khairagarh, Officer, District ^iandgaon (CG) with Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Ite. ''••'.?'. ,li1' :f i'^~..« 1 'SSS®A>, @XI-HC—78 1 -^^ j (S) i ^^.// 1i^. ' '?%'rv .-•^' '%c,S^^ 3rcT ^il^-llri.'il, ^Tn'M'ie, Ri^l'My NINdl 'th^l* W^ 200 an^r THTO (^f^^T) an^t ?n f<;-fi.ch Wf\ -STT^T 5h^i=h O R fl (9t" May| Dhirendra Mishra, J 'stawBfttt aii^i 2- By this petition un|der Article 227 of the onstitution of India the p^titioner has impugned the 'xure P/l) passed by the Rajipur, respondent No. 2 applic^tion of the petitioner for P7-08, has been rejected. <])rder dated 5.3.2008 (Ann pirector, (Panchayat), ]]ierein, whereby the ^tay in case No. l-A/89/20' The petitioner was the yanchayat-Devpuraghat, (phhuikhadan, Distt. Rajn|andgaon. Sub Divisional (pfficer (Revenue), Khairaga f)rom the post of Sarpanch tpie Chhattisgarh Panchay^t Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Ipis appeal was also disrjnissed by the Collector, [gaon/respondent N(). 3 vide order dated 17th Il)ecember 2007 (Annexure I tgainst the order of the Co •*l*lti'i'ii1-l ^ITCif tf.fe^ <Ri]t(i< ^3fRTO31lt?l E R 2008) elected Sarpanch of Gram Janpad Panchayat h/ respondent No. 4 vide rder dated 15.10.2007 (Anjnexure P/3) removed him under Section 40(1)(B) of f/2). He preferred revision llector and also moved an pplication for stay. Howev^r, his application for stay 'as rejected by the impugn^d order. ^ XI-HC—78 X. d^ 755( ^|^|<?i.<), (S'xTiy'l(o, fslrtl^y 'WTCTT sEqra? sm^i vsv (lj<at:l«<<w) sn^Tw h'n'b 1 tlfl SV^I Sbliqi ?RITW ^1?B SII^T 3. '*>l'i|!d'lfl'l 'qPRif 'if.fe^t <l«lt$l< ^'siRrtian^r Learned counsel for tt ;he Collector had stayed •emoval passed by pfficer/respondent No. 4 ^.pplication for stay ha; ^.pplication of mind as is e( ]mpugned order as no rea; •ejecting the stay applicat) [hat removal of the peti| ^arpanch is based on the| ^how cause notice issued t) ijio material was supplied ti (|>f the allegations made in t] le petitioner submits that 'xecution of the order of the Sub Divisional vide Annexure P/5. His been rejected without ^ident from perusal of the icn has been assigned for |ion. He further submits ^ioner from the post of document of Ex.P/4 i.e. [o the petitioner, however, the petitioner in support be said notice. Decebiber From perusal of the re| (pollector/respondent No. l|he petitioner on 17th ^referred revision against Ipecember 2007, however, cj drder passed by both the 1 since then and thei jtay looses its significance ;ord, it is evident that the dismissed the appeal of 2007. The petitioner the above order on 27th jperation and effect of the Qourts below has not been fefore, the application for ^vith the lapse of time. XI-HC—78 -Swf "i||*||^<l, d.Tfl^Tg, (slo'iiy^ ^tlNdl %NI+ OT^T IRTO (4e|F-j,»l<IST) sn^T ^i R-ii* ^STT ^TR1?T sh+4l<^ 'f In that view of the ma|l disposed of with a di|i (Panchayat), Raipur/respoj :he revision proceedings ivithin a period of two receipt/production of certifl ^RIWnlN'OT^T 4 +i'l<f<'i'Iil;i tniRif 'ii.fest <Fiit^i< ^aiRn an^i ;ter, the instant petition is •ection to the Director ident NoF' 2 to dispose of expeditiously, preferably aonths from the date of ied copy of this order. Sd/- ~ : Dhirendra Mishra;] Judge