← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1951/2017disposed off

Komal Yadu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-07-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.1951 of 2017 Komal Yadu, S/o Shri Gambhir Singh Yadu, R/o Village Mohandi, P.S. and Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Civil & Revenue District Dhamtari (CG).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 2.

The Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG). 3.

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG). 4.

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Magarlod, District Dhamtari (CG).

5.

Shrawan Sahu, S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Sahu, aged about 51 years, Occupation Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mohandi, P.S. and Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari (CG).

6.

Hemlal Yadav, S/o Shri Dhanraj Yadav, aged about 41 years, Occupation Panch, Gram Panchayat Mohandi, P.S. and Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari (CG).

7.

Santram Bharti, S/o Shri Gulab Bharti, aged about 45 years, Occupation Panch, Gram Panchayat Mohandi, P.S. and Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari (CG).

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17/07/2017 (1) Heard.

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has moved an application before the respondent

authorities against the respondents No.5 to 7 for disqualifying to hold the post of office bearer of the Panchayat on the ground that they were convicted and jail sentence has been imposed against them for the offence punishable under Sections 336, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, which has not been considered and decided by the respondent authorities till this date and therefore direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to decide the same expeditiously.

(3) The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable. (4) Be that as it may, Respondent No.2-Collector, Dhamtari is directed to consider and take a decision on the said application of the petitioner, expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. (5) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-