Chattisgarh High Court
Jivan Lal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 118 of 2022
Jivan Lal Sahu S/o Shri Govind Ram Sahu Aged About 51 Years Occupation
Patwari Halka No. 9, O/o Tahsildar Bilaigarh, P.S. And Tahsil Bilaigarh,
District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Revenue,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Chief Electoral Officer Chhattisgarh, Shashtri Chowk, Old
Mantralay, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
4. The District Election Officer District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
5. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
6. The Tahsildar Cum Assistant Electoral Registration Officer District-
Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1, 3, 5 & 6 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate.
For Respondents No. 2 & 4 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
20.04.2022
Heard Mr. Shantam Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
respondents No. 1, 3, 5 & 6 and Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel,
appearing for respondents No. 2 and 4.
2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 21.02.2022 passed by
the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge disposed of two
writ petitions, being WPS No. 6576 of 2021 and WPS No. 6742 of 2021.
3. The present appeal is presented against WPS No. 6576 of 2021.
4. At the very outset, it will be relevant to take note of the fact that the Writ
Appeal No. 131 of 2022, presented against the aforesaid judgment in
connection with WPS No. 6742 of 2021, was dismissed by this Court holding
as follows:
"6. The learned Single Judge has observed that Section
13-B(2) of the Act of 1950 would show that power to
appoint Supervisor has been expressly conferred upon the
Electoral Registration Officer and though by virtue of
Section 13-C(2), the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer
is competent to perform all or any of the functions of the
Electoral Registration Officers, it would not entitle the
Assistant Electoral Registration Officer to perform the
functions which the Act of 1950 had conferred upon the
Electoral Registration Officer, as the Assistant Electoral
Registration Officer is subject to the control of the Electoral
Registration Officer.
7. However, correctness or otherwise of this finding of the
learned Single Judge is not required to be gone into in this
appeal, as the very basis, on which the appellant has laid
the foundation to mount the challenge to the order of
transfer dated 16.11.2021, namely, the order dated
18.08.2021, is no longer in existence, the same having
been revoked by the order dated 04.01.2022."
5. It is an admitted position in WPS No. 6742 of 2021 that the petitioner in
the aforesaid case was appointed as a Supervisor by the Assistant Electoral
Registration Officer. While deciding the above two cases, reliance was
placed by the learned Single Judge on the pleadings of WPS No.6742 of
2021.
6. The case presented by the petitioner is that he is holding the post of
Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 09, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara. The order of transfer dated 11.11.2021 was issued, transferring
the petitioner to Patwari Halka No.53. By the said transfer order, total 35
numbers of Patwaris were transferred. One Biharilal Aditya, who was holding
the post of Patwari at Halka No.43, was transferred to the place of the
petitioner. It was pleaded in the writ petition that he was engaged as
Supervisor at Tahsil Bilaigarh in furtherance of preparation of electoral rolls.
7. Mr. Awasthi submits that the present case stands on a different footing
as there is no revocation of the order of appointment of the petitioner as
Supervisor and the learned Single Judge did not advert to the necessary
facts as pleaded in the writ petition. Therefore, this Court is required to
consider as to whether while serving as a Supervisor, the State Government
was competent to issue the order of transfer without obtaining necessary
approval from the Election Commission of India.
8. What is significant to note is that the petitioner had not placed on
record any document by which he had been appointed as a Supervisor. The
claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Supervisor rests on a
document (Annexure P/4), by which certain Patwaries were asked to appear
for training on 30.10.2021 at 1:00 pm and in that list, the name of the
petitioner appeared at Sl. No.16. Though there is no pleading in the writ
petition, it is submitted by him that the aforesaid list was forwarded to him by
the Additional Tahsildar through Whatsapp. He admits that no copy of order
of appointment as Supervisor was ever served on the petitioner.
9. On instruction, Ms. Shukla submits that one Karuna Ahir, who was
holding the post of Additional Tahsildar, had issued the said letter. She
further submits that there is no order on record by which the petitioner was
appointed as Supervisor though it is a fact that the petitioner had discharged
some duties as a Supervisor. In the absence of order of appointment of the
petitioner as Supervisor on record, no steps could be taken to revoke the
order. She submitted that petitioner is holding the post of Patwari in the
same Halka for last more than 12 years. It is submitted by her that pursuant
to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner, as on date, continues
to hold the post of Patwari in Halka No.9.
10. In the absence of any order by which the petitioner was appointed as
Supervisor, it is not possible to hold only because of the fact that his name
appeared in a list issued by the Additional Tahsildar requiring him to attend
training as a Supervisor, that the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor by a
competent authority.
11. It is not known what is the basis for including the name of the petitioner
in the said list. Assuming that the petitioner cannot be transferred while he
was asked to discharge the duties as a Supervisor, to succeed in a writ
petition, the petitioner has to demonstrate that he was validly appointed to
discharge duties for revision of electoral rolls. The petitioner has failed to
establish that he was duly appointed to discharge the functions of Supervisor.
12. It is also not disputed by Mr. Awasthi that the petitioner has remained
as Patwari of Patwari Halka No.09 for last 12 years.
13. The Patwari, who was supposed to take charge from the petitioner of
Patwari Halka No. 9, has now been transferred to Palwari Halka No. 24, in
view of the interim order granted in favour of the writ petitioner.
14. It is also submitted by Ms. Shukla that Patwari Halka No. 53, in the
meantime, is filled up by another incumbent.
15. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal.
However, we record that in view of the subsequent developments, the
original order of transfer has been rendered infructuous.
16. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of providing that the State
Authorities may pass a fresh order of transfer if considered expedient in the
interest of public service.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
