7^31 ^l^l^, »Tfly'l<a, Rl01Uy NIN^I *t<l=b .(-(l....A.......8/<?..a. Wl^ 200 sn^OT TRW (ij<iit^«j<i8r) s^s w h-u^ ^^[ -S^\ ?ti+li°h '^gw^ftasn^T APPELALNT/ .KtSi'UNUtN 1 NU.D RESPON&ENTS 4. 6. q)|^<rt<ftl 'RTR^ft ^f,'felzl' <Pt+$i< ^3ifiCT3iit?r. wan. S/o Shri Lai Si Oeewan, aged about iso years, uccupcnon Saro'mch, firarn Panchayat Donaarqaon, Vikas Khcnd Bagbohra, Tahsii and uistrict (C6). -Versus- ilar-am Deewan. aaed about 30 years, S/o lam uayai beewan. Punit Rom Sahu, S/o Sahdeo Sau, acsed about ou years. Both residents of ©ram Panchayat Block Baqbahra, uistrict Petitioners in the writ petition State of ChhCTttjsoarh, throuah the Secretar'y, Panchfln/st snd Social &eoartment. AAantrolay. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CS). Coliector, iWtthasomund (C6). Ustrict Sub &ivisional Officer & Specified Officer, /irtanasamund, uisTriCT Mahasamund (C.f?). Nay'ab Tahsildar. Baabahra & Presiding Officer, Mahasamund, District MahttssMnund (C6). ^.ifft^S^ 1^-78 »..:fe sw^sa w d.-u'h 'rTsiTT STT^T ?t)Hlcb 'Swl ^|<||<v><<, ®Tf)^'|S,(s|01^y u\: MWdl sh<41+ •^ 200 sn^?r irag? (ipf^g^g) 'i^IIWgfCTan^T &ivision Bench Hon'bi.e Shri Sunil Kumai' SiRrla. JJ No.3 Smt. Renu Kochar, coun^ Shri Vjncy f-1arit, &y. to 6, on advsnce copy. ^ilE^? 1 r"i^<3? Hon'bie Sinole Judae oliowind 18-9-2006 passed by the Cot of the Chhaft-isqarh Adhi-iiyam. 1993'\ Having heard learned ^ order doted 18-9-2006 passel the Adhiniyam, 1993 and th^ Hon'ble Smaie Judge- ^i'4i<yf;fl'i 'iffR^ '^.'f^st' <r^^i< ^aiRmsn^i ^ 'el for the apoei ftdvocat'e general for the Stote/respondents respondent No.5 before Hon'ble Sincie Judae The apBellcmt, who was| inias elected as Sarpanch fhis wrjt appeal questioning t(ie iegality <& correctness of the order dated 3-4-2007 passed by Hon'ble 5|lJlnqte Judq®in writ petition (C) No.5301/2006 a"a»n beewan & Another <i|s. State of Chhiitl'isoorh & Others) whereby the wr'it petition quashed the order dat-ed itctor in a reference made under Section 21(4) Ad.hlniyan-i, 1993 (for short "the ounsei for the pcrties, we have perused the ^ by iearned Coilector under Section 21(4) of imsuqned order dcrt'ed 3-4-2007 Dtissed by *••- Br i< fi <i'"¥;?:^''^.'">;Sfe 3=5cT ^i|tii<?»<<, 8iTflyi<o, Ri<^iy^< 1 4 .^ HI*<CTI **1|ab WI, 200 an^r ?ir ft-o'* '^SV 5ffT^?T^»4 3nt?T tRR; (1pfyR<T) '?%nw(rf?g aii^i Perusai of both the ord his or-der mentioned thot the confiderice motion issued to thi Bstition) is not availabte on no confidence motion carried'"' i^rs reveal that learned Collector in parc 6 of eckriowiedaement of service of notice of no aapelSant herein (respondent No.5 in the writ the record. Therefore, he heJd thni' the tut aoainst the UDbeilant herein is bad in low. resoondents No.l & 2 h&rain, who are the tietition bearmg W.P.(C) No.5301/2006. Hon'bie Sinole Judge while refer-ring Panchayat (Sram Pimchayat Panchffvct Tatha Ziia Parichsyct" the pro'i/isions of Ru!e 3(3) of notice to the Panchas has to b the Srain Panchayat. Notices .-f'. y i days Drior to the dste of no Rule 3 ?3) of the Niyam, We have siso envisaoes that the notice of si|i thereof shatl be caused to be| Sram Panchayat. Therefore,I! and not the service of notice. ^i^^Tef)tT ^(*<c'i1 '^r,fsl3t' <fyi^« iisifinsn^i oh Drovisions of Rule 3(3) of the Chhcttisqarh Ke Sarpcmch Totha Up-Sarpanch. Janpad Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh 1 (for shoei- "the Nwam, 1994°) heid that as per |the Niyam. 1994 only requir-ement is thot the despatched by him through the Secretar/ of oere desoatched on 22-8-2006 whereas the no 30-8-2006, thereby the notices were sent 7 onfidence motion. The.refore, the requirement was corsDlied with. the Ruie 3(3) of the Niyam. 1994. which ich meetinci sBecifyi?}? the date, tirne and otace donf desoatched ne resui! / him throuoh the of lawi is to dispotch of notice Moreover, perusai of oara 3 of imp; .^•' ;5 <S-cr| -<||<<|<^<), BlTfl^'IS, fs|<<l|y^< 311^1 »liTh-Ufh '?fsff ^\^ ?h+1iqi o WVIv\[ Sb*1|eb Wi, 200 aniyr xra^ (ipf^aRw) TOIIW ^rf??T 3D^I reveals thot the Sarpanch liimself i.e. appellant herein was present in the meetino and he was oiven thel the auestion of service bec< the meeting. For the foreQoing reai ^ -» !iable to be dismissed and it Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ebl*l[<?l4l'TJIWflf ^'f^zt Tf^I^R ^aiRn 3ii^i opportunstyto <ridress the meeting. Therefore, mes redundcmt when he himself was p"esent ifi ons, we ore of the view that there is no iiJeooSity or infirmity in the order •imiiuoned. The writ appeal being devoid of merit is s hereby dismissed. A- _f~L Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge