WPC/4422/2019 of RAMLAL PATEL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 24 December 2019

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat and RuralDevelopment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Collector, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

---- Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner: Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, AdvocateFor Respondents/State: Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant (Vacation Judge)

Order On Board

24.12.2019

1. Heard.

2. Petition has been brought challenging the notification dated16.10.2019 by which Village Markangondhi, at serial No. 48 andVillage Kandanara, at serial No. 73 have been declared separatePanchayats. 16.10.2019 by which Village Markangondhi, at serial No. 48 andVillage Kandanara, at serial No. 73 have been declared separatePanchayats.

3. It is submitted that, earlier, the notification was issued on 05.10.2019 inwhich the Village Markamgondi and Kandanara were shown in acluster to be declared as a panchayat and claim objections wereinvited for the same, however, without receiving any claims andobjections and without considering any other facts and circumstances,the notification dated 16.10.2019 has been issued by separating boththe villages as separate panchayats. The constitution of villageKandanara is against the circular issued by the State Governmentwhich the Village Markamgondi and Kandanara were shown in acluster to be declared as a panchayat and claim objections wereinvited for the same, however, without receiving any claims andobjections and without considering any other facts and circumstances,the notification dated 16.10.2019 has been issued by separating boththe villages as separate panchayats. The constitution of villageKandanara is against the circular issued by the State Government

dated 11.09.2019 in which, it is specially provided in paragraph 2 (2)that the proposed village should have population of at least onethousand, who have to be declared a panchayat. Therefore, prayer hasbeen made for issuing such direction and grant of relief.

4. On the contrary, learned State counsel opposes the petition andsubmits that the notification has been issued for the election of GramPanchayat, therefore, at this stage, respondents have no authority toreconsider on the notification issued and pass any order in that respectand the circular dated 11.09.2019 is not any rule or provision of law, itis just a guideline and the instruction given in a guideline may vary inaccordance with a requirement, therefore, the constitution of VillageKandanara as separate Panchayat is not at all illegal, petition bedismissed. It is also submitted that petitioner has not made anyrepresentation to respondent No. 2.submits that the notification has been issued for the election of GramPanchayat, therefore, at this stage, respondents have no authority toreconsider on the notification issued and pass any order in that respectand the circular dated 11.09.2019 is not any rule or provision of law, itis just a guideline and the instruction given in a guideline may vary inaccordance with a requirement, therefore, the constitution of VillageKandanara as separate Panchayat is not at all illegal, petition bedismissed. It is also submitted that petitioner has not made anyrepresentation to respondent No. 2.

5. In reply, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the notificationhas though been issued but it will become effective from 30.12.2019,therefore, the respondents can reconsider on the notification issued,therefore, application be issued.has though been issued but it will become effective from 30.12.2019,therefore, the respondents can reconsider on the notification issued,therefore, application be issued.

6. Heard, counsel for both the parties and perused documents availableon record.on record.

7. Considered the submissions and also perused all the documents filedalong with petition.along with petition.

8. Petition is disposed off without making any observations on the issuednotification date 16.10.2019. The petitioner is at liberty to filerepresentation and if any such representation is filed then respondentNo. 2 is directed to consider on the same and decide it in accordancewith law without being influenced by any observation made in thisorder.notification date 16.10.2019. The petitioner is at liberty to filerepresentation and if any such representation is filed then respondentNo. 2 is directed to consider on the same and decide it in accordancewith law without being influenced by any observation made in thisorder.

9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off.

10. Certified copy today.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Vacation Judge