High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1979/2016disposed off

Neeraj Rai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-08-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1979 of 2016 • Neeraj Rai S/o. Shri Markande Rai, Aged About 38 Years Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat- Mahmand, R/o. Village Mahmand, Main Road Lalkhadan, P. S. Torwa, Tehsil Bilaspur, Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Bilaspur, Revenue & Civil District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Bilaspur, Revenue & Civil District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Sub Divisional OfÏcer ( Revenue), Bilha, Revenue & Civil District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Zila Panchayat Bilaspur Through Chief Executive OfÏcer, Revenue & Civil District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

6. Janpad Panchayat Bilha, Through Chief Executive OfÏcer, Revenue & Civil District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

7. Naib Tehsildar Bilaspur, Revenue & Civil District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

8. Chandra Prakash Surya, S/o. Shri Shadhram Surya, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Mahmand, R/o. Village Mahmand, P. S. Torwa, Tehsil Bilaspur, Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

9. Holy Cross Sister Association / Holy Cross Institute Mahmand Through Principal, R/o. Village Mahmand, P. S. Torwa, Tehsil Bilaspur, Revenue & Civil District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. AG

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 8/8/2016

1. Heard.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred to challenge initiation of two separate proceedings under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiiyam, 1993 (in short "the Adhiniyam"), one by SDO (Revenue) Bilha and other by SDO (Revenue), Bilaspur.

3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the communication Annexure P/7 would make it clear that all the complaints lodged by the villagers against the petitioner shall be dealt with simultaneously on merits and this letter would not indicate that proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam have been initiated by the SDO(R), Bilaspur.

4. On perusal of the record, it appears, Annexure P/7 is not the only order/memo issued by the SDO(R), Bilaspur, because Annexure P/3 has also been issued by SDO(R), Bilaspur specifically referring to the power under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam.

5. Admittedly, the SDO(R), Bilha exercises jurisdiction over Gram Panchayat Mahmand. Bilha being a separate sub-division, SDO(R), Bilha would have the exclusive jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the State, would submit that SDO(R), Bilaspur, would be instructed to make over all the

complaints pending in his ofÏce against the present petitioner to the SDO(R) Bilha for initiation/continuing proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam.

7. In view of the above, nothing remains in this petition to adjudicate and issue any direction.

8. Let the needful be done within 15 days from today.

9. The writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna