Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging Commissioner's refusal to extend stay in no-confidence motion case involving suspended Sarpanch. Court found no illegality or procedural irregularity in Commissioner's decision.
Writ appeal dismissed; Commissioner directed to dispose of underlying case at early date.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
D.B.: HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE RADHE SHYAM SHARMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.83/2012
APPELLANT
Smt. Anita Kosariya, W/o Shri Satyakala, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Telasi, Gram Panchayat Telasi, Tehsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.)
Versus
t t
WRIT APPEAL No.83l2012
WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL To DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 Appearance :
Mr. C.R. Sahu, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. UNS Deo, Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (19.03.2012)
The following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. S
Heard on admission.
The appellant/petitioner has tiled this appeal against the order dated 8‘“ of February 2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.263/2012. By the impugned order, the writ petition tiled by the appellant has been dismissed by the writ Court.
Respondent No.8Smt. Nileshwari is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Telasi, Tehsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.). A No Confidence Motion was passed against her on 24.08.2011. She challenged the validity of passing of the No Confidence Motion by referring the dispute to the Collector under Section 21(4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The said reference was allowed by the Collector by order dated 26.09.2011 and No Confidence Motion carried out against respondent No.8 was quashed. The said order was further challenged by the appellant/petitioner before the Commissioner, Raipur Division in Case No.896/A—89(1) Year 2010-2011. in the said case, earlier, an interim stay was granted by the Commissioner, but later on, the stay was not extended and the ...prder dated 28.11.2011 was passed. The appellant/petitioner challenged the validity of the said order passed by the Commissioner by tiling the writ petition.
WRIT APPEAL NO.83I2012
The writ Court did not flnd any substance in .the contention raised by learned counsel for the appeliant/petitioner. In para2 of the impugned order, the writ Court observed that there was no irreguiarity, iiiegality or procedural error in passing the order (impugned order in the writ petition) by the Commissioner. The writ Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition.
,Mr. Sahu submits that the writ Court erred in law in holding that there was no procedural irregularity.
We have heard leamed counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petitionasalsowrit appeaL
The writ Court has clearly observed that before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, no application for further extension of stay granted earlier was tiled and therefore, there was no procedural irregularity in the view taken by the Commissioner. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the writ Court. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed andis hereby dismissed summarily.
However, in the interest of justice, it is observed that Case No. 896/A—89 (1) Year 2010-201 1 may itself be disposedof by the Commissioner at an early date. Sd/— SunilKumarSinha Sdlg Judge g Radhe Shyam Sharma t Judge
shyna
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court erred in law in holding that there was no procedural irregularity in the Commissioner's order refusing further stay.
Smt. Anita Kosariya
State of Chhattisgarh
Smt. Nileshwari
Sunil Kumar Sinha
Radhe Shyam Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
