Santosh Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2150 Chatt

                                        -1-




                                                                             NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WP(C) No. 1664 of 2022

      Santosh Singh S/o Tamaskar Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
      Bhaiso, Tahsil And Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa,
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---- Petitioner
                                     Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Revenue
      Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur,
      Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
   2. The Upper Commissioner,            Bilaspur   Division,   District   Bilaspur,
      Chhattisgarh.
   3. The Collector, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
   4. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Prescribed Authority, Pamgarh,
      District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
   5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh, District
      Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
   6. Akash Singh S/o Krishna Kumar Singh, R/o Gram Panchayat Bhaiso,
      Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
   7. Agni Singh S/o Chunni Lal Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Gram
      Panchayat, Bhaiso, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa,
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate with Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate.

For the respondent/ State : Shri Pawan Kesharwani, P.L. For respondent No.7 : Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate. For respondent No.6/ Caveator : Shri Ramesh Nayak, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order on Board

05.04.2022

Heard on petition as well as on I.A. No. 1 of 2022, an application for

grant of interim relief.

1. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.6 was an

elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhaiso, Tehsil Pamgarh, District

Janjgir-Champa. In a proceeding under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh

Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, 1993'), respondent

No.6 has been removed from the office by order dated 23.2.2022

(Annexure-P/2). Respondent No.6 has preferred an appeal and the

Appellate Court as by order dated 28.2.2022 stayed the effect and

operation of the order dated 23.2.2022.

2. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

then preferred a revision before respondent No.2 alongwith the

application for grant of interim relief, on which respondent No.2 has

passed orders staying the effect and operation of order dated

28.2.2002, which is the order dated 4.3.2022. Respondent No.6 had

earlier preferred W.P.(C) No.1347 of 2022, which was disposed of by

this Court by order dated 16.3.2022, directing respondent No.5 to file an

application for vacating the stay order passed by respondent No.2

before the same authority. On this basis, respondent No.6 filed an

application for vacating the stay, has been decided by the impugned

order dated 31.3.2022, which is not a speaking order.

Reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in the

case of Chetan Kurre and Ors. vs. Smt. Bharti Bareth and Ors., in

W.P.(C) No.1390 of 2016, decided on 7.4.2017 and in the case of

Govind Banjare and Ors., vs. Smt. Gyan Bai and Ors., in W.P.(C)

No.2018 of 2019 decided on 20.6.2019 on this point that the interim

order passed by the Collector is against the provisions under Section 40

of the Act, 1993.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that there

is no infirmity in the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the Collector has the

authority to pass the stay order under Rule 8 of the Gram Panchayat

(Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. It is also submitted that the

judgments in the case of Chetan Kurre and Ors., (supra) and Govind

Banjare and Ors., (supra) shall not be applicable in this case as the

same have been passed with respect to the proceeding under

Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that respondent No.7 is

the affected party who was appointed as a new Sarpanch after the

removal of respondent No.6 from that post. The order has been

obtained by respondent No.6 behind the back of respondent No.7 and

by concealing the fact that the post of Sarpanch has already occupied

by respondent No.7.

6. Considered on the submissions. Although, there is a law laid down by

this Court in the case of Chetan Kurre and Ors., (supra) which has

been followed in the case of Govind Banjare and Ors., (supra) but at

present, the appeal is pending before the Collector and the order of the

Collector is under challenge before the Commissioner.

7. As per Annexure-P/5 dated 16.3.2022, respondent No.7 has been

appointed as officiating Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Bhaiso and he

has also taken charge of the post on 17.3.2022. This fact was not

brought to the notice of the Revisional Authority/ respondent No.2,

therefore, the order of respondent No.2 is required to be re-looked and

therefore, the petition is disposed of at motion stage. The impugned

order dated 31.3.2022 is set aside. The application of respondent No.6

before the Commissioner for vacating the stay order stands restored.

Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider on the application in the light

of subsequent developments that has taken place, giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner and the other interested party if it is so desired

and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This Court has not

made any observation on the merits of the case.

8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi