Fuleshwari Mahesh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 818 Chatt

                                   1


                                                                  NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                      Writ Appeal No. 32 of 2022


1.   Fuleshwari Mahesh, W/o Shri Narayan, aged about 43 years,
     Sthanapann Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Hardi, R/o Village
     Panchayat Hardi, Ward No. 14, Village- Hardi, Post Office- Hardi,
     Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Civil and Revenue District-
     Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

2.   Ramratan Patel, S/o Shri Rishi Kumar Patel, aged about 31 years,
     R/o Ward No. 2, Gram Panchayat Hardi, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District-
     Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

3.   Omprakash Nirala, S/o Late Budhram Nirala, aged about 34 years,
     R/o Ward No. 16, Gram Panchayat Hardi, Tahsil- Sarangarh,
     District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

4.   Sushil Sidar, S/o Shri Pitaru Sidar, aged about 36 years, R/o Ward
     No. 14, Gram Panch Hardi, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                          ---- Appellants

                                Versus

1.   State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh
     (C.G.)

2.   The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District-
     Bilaspur (C.G.)

3.   The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) cum presiding Officer
     (Panchayat) Sarangarh, Tahsil-Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.)

4.   Smt. Deepmala Manhar, W/o Shri Kamleshwar Manhar, Ex-
     Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Hardi, Tahsil-Sarangarh, District-
     Raigarh (C.G.)

5.   The Secretary Gram Panchayat Hardi, Tahsil-Sarangarh, District-
     Raigarh (C.G.)

6.   The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, Tahsil-
     Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.)

                                                       ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.

For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

Judgment on Board Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

17.02.2022

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants.

Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate,

appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned

counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4.

2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 20.12.2021 passed

by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 5072 of 2021.

3. The respondent No. 4 in the writ petition was elected as Sarpanch

of Gram Panchayat, Hardi. A no confidence motion under the provision of

Section 21 Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, (for short,

'Adhiniyam, 1993') was passed against her on 31.07.2021, which was

challenged before the District Collector, Raigarh by way of reference

under Section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1993.

4. The District Collector, while admitting the reference, passed an

interim order dated 31.08.2021 staying the execution of no confidence

motion. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the

Additional Commissioner by way of a revision under Rule 5 of the

Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995, which was

registered as Revision Case No. 27A-89/2020-21. Initially, the order

dated 31.08.2021 was stayed by the Additional Commissioner on

04.09.2021, but subsequently, the revision petition was dismissed. On

dismissal of the revision petition, the respondent No. 4 assumed the ex

parte charge of the post of Sarpanch.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by filing the

writ petition, out of which the present appeal arises.

6. The point canvassed before the learned Single Judge was that the

Collector had no power to grant an interim order.

7. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as follows:

"5. Be that as it may, considering the fact the

Reference is still pending consideration before the

District Collector and there is an interim order in

operation pursuant to which the Respondent No.4 has

assumed the exparte charge on the post of Sarpanch,

it would be more appropriate if the District Collector is

directed to decide the said Reference case itself on

merits so as to lay to rest the core issue itself instead

of adjudicating the interim applications and the interim

orders passed by the Authorities concerned.

6. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of directing

the Respondent No.1, District Collector, to take

appropriate decision on the Reference case pertaining

to the No Confidence Motion passed against

Respondent No.4 on 31.07.2021, on its own merits, at

the earliest, preferably within a period of 30 days from

the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

7. The Petitioners also would have the liberty for

approaching the District Collector in respect of the

proceeding drawn and the granting of the interim relief

if any, if at all they are aggrieved of the same.

8. With the aforesaid direction and liberty, the Writ

Petition stands disposed of."

8. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the District Collector

has passed an order dated 16.02.2022 in the reference case setting

aside the resolution of no confidence.

9. Mr. Sinha submits that in view of the passing of the said order, the

appellant will assail the order in accordance with law.

10. We find that because of subsequent developments, there is no

surviving cause of action, and therefore, the appeal is disposed of as

infructuous.

11. We also deem it appropriate to record that the question as to

whether the Collector can pass an interim order while entertaining the

reference, is left open to be decided in a more appropriate case.

                               Sd/-                                          Sd/-
                     (Arup Kumar Goswami)                           (N.K. Chandravanshi)
                          Chief Justice                                     Judge
Brijmohan