gmggg Bgé‘am IN THE HON‘BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (C) Naibw 2L /2011 /7 Jai Kunwar, W/o Late Mani Singh, aged about 48 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bundeli, R/o Village Bundeli, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS 1.‘ /State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department ofPanchayat and Social Welfare, DKS. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. (amp Fol‘ector, District Korea (C.G.) 3./Zila Panchayat, Korea Through the ChiefExecutive Officer Zila Panchayat, Korea (C.G.) 4.//Janpad Panchayat Manendagarh, Through the ChiefExecutive Officer Janpad‘ Panchayat, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) ‘5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) Gram Panchayat Paradol, Through its Sarpanch, Uram Pancnayat Paradol, Distt. Korea (C‘G.) RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF y ' APPROPRIATE WRIT. ,« / a‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.7437 OF 2011 PETITIONER Jai Ku’nwar Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State. O R D E R (Passed on this 9m day of December, 201 1) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 3—10—2011 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, in case No.08/A—89/2010—11, by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the basis of some alleged irregularities in construction works, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 10-2-2011 (Annexure — P/3) to which the petitioner submitted her reply on 24-3-2011 and denied the allegations leveled against her. According to the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Officer, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective, removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch by order dated 3-1 0—201 1. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Korea on 24-10-2011 under the provisions of Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj ’ Adhiniyam,l1993 and during pendency of the said?appeal, by order dated 22-1 1-2011 the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare ria @ directed the Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh for appointment of substituted Sarpanch. Hence, this petition. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already chailenged the order dated 3-10-2011 before the Collector, Korea, by filing a statutory appeal and the same is pending consideration, thus, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot take any decision on the order dated 3-10—201 1. Entertaining this writ petition against the order arising from the same cause of action amounts to two parallel proceedings, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. ln the result, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner, if so advised, to make an appropriate application before the appellate authority for stay of the proceedings, against which the appeal is pending consideration. Sd/ if Satish Kagnthmri Judge