Gajanand Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Waquar Naiyer, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 6.

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 3637 of 2022.

Respondents No. 5 to 11 in the present appeal, who are the members of Panchayat, Kampa, had lodged a complaint against the appellant, alleging primarily that some fictitious online payment was made to the brother of the appellant.

A show-cause notice was issued on 07.06.2022 on the basis of said complaint, to which the petitioner had submitted his reply on 13.06.2022.

Subsequently, on 02.08.2022, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) had passed an order of removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch in exercise of powers under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, after obtaining a report from the enquiry committee.

The appellant challenged the said order by preferring an appeal before the Collector, Mahasamund, wherein the appellant had also made a prayer for stay of the order dated 02.08.2022. However, no stay was granted by the Collector, Mahasamund, as against which the writ petition was filed by the present appellant.

The learned Single Judge by the order dated 26.08.2022 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3637 of 2022, as corrected by the order dated 02.09.2022 in MCC No. 477 of 2022, noting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Collector, Mahasamund be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously within an outer limit to be fixed by the Court, disposed of the writ petition directing the Collector, Mahasamund to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner preferably within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

It is against that order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is preferred.

It will appear from the orders dated 26.08.2022 and 02.09.2022 that submission was advanced for disposal of the appeal within a period to be fixed by the Court and that no argument was advanced with regard to stay of the order dated 02.08.2022.

In the appeal, there is no averment that aforesaid submission was wrongly recorded. Even otherwise, having regard to the materials on record, we are of the opinion that prayer for grant of stay of the order dated 02.08.2022 is not made out.

Our above observation is made only in the context of prayer for stay made by the appellant and such observation shall not be construed as any final opinion on the merits of the appeal, which shall be decided by the Collector, Mahasamund on its own merits.

The Collector, Mahasamund will dispose of the appeal preferably within 45 days from today.

Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of.