Dismissed

Shanti Bai Gada v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC21 Sept 2017WP/3349/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a village kotwar challenging her removal order, holding that she was afforded an opportunity of hearing and there was no jurisdictional error in the impugned orders affirmed by three authorities.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as being without substance, with no costs awarded to the respondents.

Shanti Bai Gada Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP No.3349 of 2003

¶4

Shantibai Gada, aged about 31 years, Wife of Bhukhauram Gada, Village Kotwar, Village Puleni, Tehsil-Kasdol, District Raipur (CG)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Board of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG)

¶8

The Collector, Raipur (CG)

¶9

Tahsildar, Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur, Raipur (CG)

¶10

Gram Panchayat, Phuleni (Puleni), Through its Sarpanch, Tah. Kasdol, Raipur (CG)

¶11

Ramesh Sahish S/o Dukharan, Kotwar village Puleni, Tehsil Kasdol, District Raipur (Now District Baloda Bazaar)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Res.No.1 to 3 : Mr.Arun Sao, Dy.A.G.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

¶15

21/09/2017

¶16

The petitioner was appointed as village kotwar by the competent authority under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'). He has been removed finding guilty by Tahsildar, Kasdol by order dated 1.12.2001 as charge Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 have been found proved. That order has been affirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh by order dated 31.1.2002 in appeal and the Board of Revenue has also affirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh by the impugned order.

¶17

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing and as such, the orders passed by the authorities deserve to be set aside. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter

¶18

¶19

of Indrani Bai Vs. Union of India 1.

¶20

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned orders.

¶21

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶22

5. Tahsildar, Kasdol in its detailed order has recorded a finding that charge Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 have been found proved, which has been upheld by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh and the Board of Revenue. There is concurrent finding of three authorities that charges have been found proved.

¶23

6. So far as an opportunity of hearing is concerned, it has clearly been recorded by the Tahsildar, Kasdol that opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and charges against the petitioner are serious in nature. Concurrent finding recorded by three authorities is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶27

B/-

¶28

1 (1994) Supp2 SCC 256

Shanti Bai Gada v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Bai Gada 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damodar Das Vs N.M.D.C. and Ors.

Ghanshyam Lal Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yamuna Bai and Ors. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

L.N.Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vikas Jain Vs the President,Devanand Jain SCHOOLandORS

Balbeer Singh Chawla Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.