Chhattisgarh High Court
WP/2927/2003 of MALKHAN Vs THE STATE OF C.G.and ORS. on 6 December 2003
COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. ^°) 2^^ /2003 . PETITIONER MaUcham, Aged about 55 years S/o Fakira Jangade, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Thakurtola Tah. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1^1. r-"^ .V3%<§^*~ .^^"^ ^-^' ^ ". ^.Ap
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR
Writ Petition N0.^°)2^^ /2003.
PETITIONERMaUcham, Aged about 55 yearsS/o Fakira Jangade, SarpanchGram Panchayat ThakurtolaTah. Dongargarh, DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.)VERSUSRESPONDENTS1^1.The State of ChhattisgarhThrough Sub-Divisional OfficerDongargarh Distt. Rajnandgaonr-"^.V3%<§^*~The Collector.^^"^Rajnandgaon (C.G.)^-^'3.Shivendra Singh, S/o. Jivan Singh^Up-Sarpanch, Thakurtola,^s'Tah. Dongargarh Dista-ictRajnandgaon (C.G.)".WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE=rTV ^.Ap \\ ilCQNSTITUTION OF INDIA> n ^
•AKV
•^^•^pn^pq^ "g^pl^, i^<ytt^y
3TI^T "q^?
^f ^'591WWtTr^iN?-Y-'-*l"":?s"M"";-1"-"M 5b^((<^2WQ
*^^T"
-^
-A'
-3"^ ^TPTR^, ^^<i<o, fa^^a<
3TI^T '^^
..^3J...k3.
M200
WWtl ^b^liw
•fN^si'
w^^ fe^t <^^i<sn^T'^i^rafepiN'f^IW 31^snSp?! ^nw^rf^ip3TP<RCT^I^ -yf^^out of total 20 laenibei^ had c}ast fheir votes tti favour of fhe 110coufidence miotion aiid accordia^ly it was held fhat tlie uo conficlencemotion has been caj^ied outA^cordmgly, the Prescri.bed Auth.orityremoved fhe petitioner from fhe |post of Sarpanch, Gram PaachayatThakurtola, agahist which tlie tpetitioner moved a dispute underSection 21 (4) offhe Panchayat ^aj Adhiaiyam, 1993 aad the learaedAppellateAufhorityi.e, flie Additi'Diial Collector dismissed tlie disputevide order dated 09.07.2003 (Ai^xure P-4),A veiy lunited poiat has b^en raised in tliis petition aiid tliepomt i-aised by tlie leanied couns^l for tlie petitioner before tlie Courtis fhat Sub-rale (3) of Rule 3 of ^ules, 1994 euvisage tliat uotice ofineetiag specifying tlie date, tinie ^iid place tliereof shaU be caused tobe dispatched by him fhrough fh^ Secretan^ of Gram Paiichayat aadto eveiy member of fhe Paiichav4t concenied seven days before tlieinee^tmg aad tlie High Court of JM.P. m fhe case of Smt. BhuliaDewaaganVs.State of M.P. |& Othersreported ia 2000(4)M.P.H.T. at Page 69 held that tije provisioiis of Sub-rule 3 of Rule(3)[ofthe][ 1994][ Riiles][ arc][ maadatd]ry in. natiirc.In this case it is notdisputed that mitially tlie Prescnl^ed Autliority fixed tlie meetmg on25,02.2003 aad notices were dis^•atched on 20/02/2003, however,the petitioner inoved an applicatkln before the Preseribed Authoritysaymg that he is ill, flierefore, 4e wil1 not be able to atteud fliemeetiiig, thereforc, fhe Prescribed| Authority' postponed the meetingfor 26.03.2003 andfor which |lie notices were dispatched on21,03.2003, tliis has been admitt^d by the leamed counsel for therespondents ia the retuni.
^
^
3TT^T Xj^^
..a^.A.aJ.^.. •M
^ww »w^
^(<b<^<
^'
T5? -^HId^, ^WI?, T^w^
,^v