Petitioner, a Sarpanch arrested in a Vigilance case, challenged the B.D.O.'s action of handing over charge to the Naib-Sarpanch under Section 21(4) of the Grama Panchayat Act. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous due to the expiry of the Sarpanch's term prior to filing.
The writ application is dismissed as infructuous.
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.
W.P.(C). NO. 30056 of 2011
04. 19.10.2016 None appears for the petitioner.
The petitioner, who is a Sarpanch of Kinjirikela Grama Panchayat, has challeng
ed the action of the B.D.O. concerned in handing over the charge of Sarpanch to the Naib-Sarpa
nch, in exercise of the power U/S. 21 (4) of the Grama Panchayat Act.
Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that, as the petitioner was arrested in a
Vigilance case and remanded to custody for 14 days, the B.D.O. has rightly exercised the pow
er U/S. 21 (4) of the Grama Panchayat Act. It is further submitted by learned Addl. Government
Advocate that however, the term of Sarpanch has expired since 2012 and this writ application
has been filed in the year 2011.
In view of such fact, the writ application has become infructuous by efflux of
time. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed as infructuous.
C.R. Dash, J.
Subha
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ application is maintainable given that the term of the Sarpanch expired before the filing of the application.
Whether the discharge of the petitioner from custody affects the order handing over charge to the Naib-Sarpanch.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subha
B.D.O.
C.R. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court