Disposed

Balaram v. the Upper Commissioner and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2015WPS/2618/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disclaimer order in writ petition under Article 227. Petitioner challenged Additional Commissioner's order remitting removal appeal of deleted Kotwar respondent. Court disposed petition observing petitioner must be heard in pending SDO proceedings while declining to express opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be heard in pending SDO proceedings within 6 months; no opinion on merits expressed.

Balaram Vs the Upper Commissioner and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 2618 of 2012

¶4

Balaram S/o Late Shri Dhirpal Singh, aged about 52 years R/o Village Chunchuniya, Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli C.G.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

The Sub Divisional Officer ®, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶9

The Tahsildar, Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶10

The Nayab Tahsildar Sargaon, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶11

5.-A Amrika Bai, widow of late Sonuram, aged about 41 years, R/o village Chunchuniya, Tahsil Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶12

5-B Rajesh S/o Sonuram, aged about 15 years, R/o village Chunchuniya, Tahsil Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶13

Jethuram Nishad, S/o Shri Bhagela, R/o village Chunchuniya, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶14

Kejugir S/o Shri Kalyan Gir, R/o village Chunchuniya, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶15

Munit S/o Not known, R/o village Chunchuniya, Tahsil – Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶16

---- Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For respondent/State Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5-A & 5-B Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

8/7/2015

¶21

Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

(2) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been thrown to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, whereby, the second appeal preferred by deceased respondent No.5, now represented by his Legal Heirs, has been allowed and the matter governing the removal/appointment of Kotwar has been remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli, for decision afresh.

¶23

(3) It appears that deceased respondent No.5 Sonuram was appointed as Kotwar of village Chunchuniya. On account of some complaint against him, he was suspended from services on 08.03.2007, against which, the respondents Nos. 6 to 8 preferred complaint against Kotwar namely Jethuram, Kejugir and Munit, preferred appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli. By order dated 19.09.2007, their appeal was allowed and the Kotwar was removed from the office. Challenging the said order of the SDO, the deceased respondent No.5 preferred a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, which stands allowed by the impugned order.

¶24

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the person who was appointed as temporary Kotwar after removal of deceased – respondent No.5 as Kotwar of village Chunchuniya. He would further submit that since after removal of deceased Kotwar (respondent No.5), the petitioner was appointed as officiating Kotwar, therefore, he should have been arrayed as a party before the Additional Commissioner and the matter should have been decided after affording him opportunity of hearing.

¶25

(5) By the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur

¶26

Division has remitted back the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli for decision afresh in the matter, therefore, the matter has not yet been decided finally. It is informed to this Court that because of the pendency of this writ petition, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli has not proceeded further in the matter. However, respondent No.5A Amrika Bai is presently working as Kotwar of the said village.

¶27

(6) Considering the entire facts situation of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that in the pending proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli, the petitioner shall also be heard. The said SDO shall decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months.

¶28

(7) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Judge

¶31

(Prashant Kumar Mishra)

¶32

Shyna

Balaram v. the Upper Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaram v. the Upper Commissioner 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

Dr.smt.sulabha Ahluwalia Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dr. v. a. K. Kosaria Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Dubey Vs Chhattisgarh Adhosanrachana Vikas Nigam

Ashwani Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Satish Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Anand Kumar Chauhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.