High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2744/2018dismissed

Manoj Kumar Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-10-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2744 of 2018 • Manoj Kumar Patel S/o Govind Prasad Patel, Aged About 45 Years, Up Sarpanch Of The Gram Panchayat, Dhuma, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat, Naya Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Sub Divisional OfÏcer, OfÏce Of The Sub Division Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive OfÏcer, Janpad Panchayat Belha, Tehsil Belha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Kishore Kumar Patel, S/o Late Namo Prasad Patel, Aged About 46 Years R/o School Chowk Dhuma, Police Station Sirgitti, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer Order On Board By Hon'ble Mr.Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 3/10/2018

1. Heard.

2. During incarceration of the regular Sarpach of Gram Panchayat, Dhuma (respondent No.4), the petitioner was appointed ofÏciating Sarpanch, however, after release of respondent No.4 on bail by the High Court vide MCRC No.4886/2018, the

competent authority has issued the communication dated 12.9.2018-Annexure P/1, directing the petitioner to hand over the charge of the ofÏce of Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat to respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that respondent No.4 is facing serious charges under Sections 363, 506-B, 354-A of IPC and under Section 8, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, therefore, handing over the charge of the ofÏce of Sarpanch to such a person is not in the interest of the Gram Panchayat.

4. It is for the competent authority to look into the matter and pass orders, if necessary, under Section 39 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, however, till such action is initiated against respondent No.4, the petitioner cannot withhold handing over charge to respondent No.4, because, he is a duly elected Sarpanch and at present, there is no order by any authority against him either suspending or removing him from the ofÏce.

5. The petitioner is only an ofÏciating Sarpanch having no right to hold the post, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Shyna