Chattisgarh High Court
Gajanand Sahu vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 533 of 2022
Gajanand Sahu, S/o Late Manbodhiram Sahu, aged about 49 years,
Occupation-Elected Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat-Kampa, Police Station-
Tumgaon, Janpad Panchayat-Mahasamund, Tahsil & District-
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of
Panchayat, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
2. The Collector, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Prescribed Officer
Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat - Mahasamund,
District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
5. Surendra Dubey S/o Late Sarayu Prasad Dubey Aged About 51
Years Occupation Panch Gram Panchayat - Kampa, Tahsil And
District - Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
6. Sandeep Chandrakar Occupation - Panch Gram Panchayat -
Kampa, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
7. Sunny Tandon Occupation - Kampa, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
8. Kalyani Dubey Occupation - Panch, Gram Panchayat - Kampa,
Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (Chhatisgarh)
9. Shakeena Bee Occupation - Panch Gram Panchayat - Kampa,
Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
10. Shakeela Bano Occupation - Panch, Gram Panchayat - Kampa,
Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
11. Nutan Banjare Occupation - Panch, Gram Panchayat - Kampa,
Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government
Advocate.
For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
22.09.2022
Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Waquar Naiyer, learned
counsel, appearing for respondent No. 6.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 26.08.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 3637 of 2022.
3. Respondents No. 5 to 11 in the present appeal, who are the
members of Panchayat, Kampa, had lodged a complaint against the
appellant, alleging primarily that some fictitious online payment was made
to the brother of the appellant.
4. A show-cause notice was issued on 07.06.2022 on the basis of said
complaint, to which the petitioner had submitted his reply on 13.06.2022.
5. Subsequently, on 02.08.2022, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) had
passed an order of removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch in
exercise of powers under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,
1993, after obtaining a report from the enquiry committee.
6. The appellant challenged the said order by preferring an appeal
before the Collector, Mahasamund, wherein the appellant had also made
a prayer for stay of the order dated 02.08.2022. However, no stay was
granted by the Collector, Mahasamund, as against which the writ petition
was filed by the present appellant.
7. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 26.08.2022 in Writ
Petition (C) No. 3637 of 2022, as corrected by the order dated
02.09.2022 in MCC No. 477 of 2022, noting the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that Collector, Mahasamund be directed
to decide the appeal expeditiously within an outer limit to be fixed by the
Court, disposed of the writ petition directing the Collector, Mahasamund
to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner preferably within 45 days
from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
8. It is against that order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is
preferred.
9. It will appear from the orders dated 26.08.2022 and 02.09.2022 that
submission was advanced for disposal of the appeal within a period to be
fixed by the Court and that no argument was advanced with regard to
stay of the order dated 02.08.2022.
10. In the appeal, there is no averment that aforesaid submission was
wrongly recorded. Even otherwise, having regard to the materials on
record, we are of the opinion that prayer for grant of stay of the order
dated 02.08.2022 is not made out.
11. Our above observation is made only in the context of prayer for stay
made by the appellant and such observation shall not be construed as
any final opinion on the merits of the appeal, which shall be decided by
the Collector, Mahasamund on its own merits.
12. The Collector, Mahasamund will dispose of the appeal preferably
within 45 days from today.
13. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
