← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2249/2019dismissed

Pappu Luniya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-09-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2249 of 2019 • Pappu Luniya, S/o Shri Rajaram Luniya, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village - Nawarangpur, Post Ramhepur, Officiating Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Nawrangpur, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Additioanal Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri G.L. Uike, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Rahul Jha, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 02/09/2019 1.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner was appointed as officiating Sarpanch by an order dated 11.01.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner was removed from the post of Officiating Sarpanch, as such the petition was preferred before the Collector. The Collector by order dated 02.03.2019 dismissed that petition, against which initially a Writ Petition bearing No. WPC1563 of 2019 was filed wherein this Court by order dated 02.05.2019 dismissed the same with an observation that an alternative remedy of

filing revision is available to the petitioner under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Thereafter instead of filing a revision before the Commissioner, the petitioner again preferred a revision before the Additional Collector itself and eventually against the dismissal of the said revision, this petition has been preferred. 3.

Perused the documents.

4.

Perusal of the documents show that the petition preferred is completely misconceived and sans logic as when some order has been passed by the Collector then filing a revision would certainly lie before the higher authority i.e. the Commissioner as per the statute. However, in this case the petitioner preferred the revision before the Collector itself which was not maintainable. Consequently no relief can be granted.

5.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Jyoti