Dismissed

Shivshanker Sahu @ Shivshanker Sonbair v. Smt. Satti Markam

Chhattisgarh HC15 Mar 2018WPC/618/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the Collector's order that interfered with an administrative removal of a Sarpanch, the High Court held the petition without substance. The Court observed the Collector had recorded findings that sufficient hearing was not granted and no enquiry was held for the removal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner may raise the raised grounds before the Sub Divisional Officer. No costs.

Shivshanker Sahu @ Shivshanker Sonbair Vs Smt… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No.618 of 2018

¶4

Shivshanker Sahu @ Shivshanker Sonbair S/o Narad Ram Sahu, aged about 33 years, R/o village Sankra, Gandhi Chowk, Tahsil Nagri, Thana Sihawa, Dist-Dhamtari

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Satti Markam W/o. Shri Amresh Markam, aged about 43 years, R/o Village & Post Sankra, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (CG)

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG)

¶9

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Surendra Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Anand Dadariya, Dy.G.A.

¶10

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

15/03/2018

¶13

Order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Nagri removing respondent No.1-Sarpanch from the post of Sarpanch was interfered with by the Collector, Dhamtari and remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on the ground that Section 40(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 has not been complied with, against which, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law.

¶15

On the other hand, learned State Counsel for respondent No.2 would support the impugned order.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

¶17

¶18

impugned order and other documents appended with the writ petition.

¶19

A careful perusal of the impugned order would show that the Collector, Dhamtari has clearly recorded a finding that respondentSarpanch was not allowed sufficient opportunity of hearing to lead evidence and document was not allowed to be exhibited and without making any enquiry he was removed from the post of Sarpanch. The said finding recorded by the Collector is based on material available on record. I do not find any merit in this writ petition.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds, which are raised in this writ petition, before the Sub Divisional Officer, Nagri. No cost(s).

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶23

B/-

Shivshanker Sahu @ Shivshanker Sonbair v. Smt. Satti Markam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivshanker Sahu @ Shivshanker Sonbair v. Smt. Satti Markam

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

Prakash Z. Meshram Vs Zonal Manager Bank of India and Ors.

Orion Ferro Allloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

Machhali Vyawasai Kalyan Sangh Vs the State Government of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Bhardwaj Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Seema Rathore Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chandra Bhushan Shukla Vs Managing Director, C.I.D.C. and Anr.