Dismissed

Om Prakash Kersayal And Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jan 2015WPPIL/1/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding panchayat elections, the Division Bench held that since the impugned order was passed under Section 17(2) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, no scope existed for interference unless the Act's constitutionality was challenged.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to file an appropriate petition. No order as to costs.

Om Prakash Kersayal And Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

B EFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘I'I'ISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

W.P. PIL No. of2015

¶4

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶5

LSEEKING^{INTERVENTIONOFTHISHON’BLECOURTINTHEMATTEROF} PANCHAYAT ELECTION IN DISTRICT BALODA BAZAAR)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

PETITIONERS / :1./ Om Prakash Kersayal, S/o. Satanand Kersayal, aged about 47 years, Member of Other Back Ward Class & working as Supervisor, Grasim Cement, R/o. Village Rawan, Block Simga, District Balodabazar— Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. Santosh Bhatnagar, S/o. Janakram

¶8

Santosh Bhatnagar, S/o. Janakram Bhatnagar aged about 34 years R/o Village Rewan, Block S'imga, Uistricl Balodabazar— Bhatapara (C.G.) 3. Arun Kashyap, S/o. Dayanand Kashyap, aged about 24 years, R/o. Village Rawan, Block Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

RESPONDENTS :1. / State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur

¶11

The Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, through the Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Near Old Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

(K 3. The Collector, District Balodabazar— Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶13

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING THE INTERVENTION OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN PANCHAYAT ELECTION AT DISTRICT BALODABAZAAR—BHATAPARA CHHATTISGARH.

¶14

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARH,BILASPUR}

¶17

DIVISION BENCH

¶18

HON'BLE MR.T.P.^SHARMA& HON'BLE MR.^{I.S.UBOWEJA,JJ}

¶19

W.P. IPIL)^No.01of2015

¶20

Petitioners

¶21

Om Prakash Kersayal^andother

¶22

versus

¶23

7 v,

¶24

Respondents State of Chhattisgarh^andothers.

¶25

”a ! ’ddltlonalcounselforthe petltl ners A Advocate General^for s No. 1 and 3. : nsel for the respondent^No.2.

¶26

T.P. Sharma,

¶27

By this petition^m the orm of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners^have prayed^{forfollowingreliefs:-}

¶28

“That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be (10.1) pleased to quash the impugned notification dated 29.10.2014^{andimpugnedorderdated} 24 12 2014^{issuedbytherespondentNo2} Any other relief^{deemsfitinthe} present^facts (10.2) and Circumstances^{ofthiscasemayalsobe} awarded to the petitioner

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petition and annexures perused.

¶30

lt appears that the^{orderunderchallenge} in this petition^has been passed in accordance with Section 17 (2) of the

¶31

¶32

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, therefore, unless the vires of the Act is not challenged, we do not fund any scope for inten‘erence in this Public Interest Litigation. Consequentiy, the writ petition (PIL) stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to redress their grievances by filing appropriate petition. No order asto costs. Sdi~

Viiay

TP. Sharma

Judge

Sdl— Inder^SinghUboweia Judge

Om Prakash Kersayal And Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Kersayal And Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulabbu @ Santosh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daulatram Vs State of C.G.

Keshbo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhoj Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Ritu Jangade Vs Maleshwar Jangade

Smt. Anuja Bajpai Vs Mr. Puneet Kumar