SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Chh) 276

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI
GUHRI RAM THAKUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF C. G. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate, for the Petitioners.
Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate, for the State.

ORDER

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 8-9-2008 (Annexure P/1) has removed the petitioner from the post ofSarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bharda, Tahsil; Gurur, District Durg, in exercise of his power under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adniniyam, 1993 (for short, "the Adhiniyam, 1993"), without following basic principles of natural justice. There is an efficacious and statutory remedy available under the provisions of Section 91 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Learned counsel further submits that the appeal cannot be preferred to the Collector as the proceedings have been initiated at the instance of Additional Collector by memo dated 19-3-2008 (Annexure P/3).

2. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the memo dated 19-3-2008 (Annexure P/3) was to take steps to remove the petitioner after following due process of law and in accordance with law. The complaint of the petitioner is that the principles of natural justice have not been followed. The memo does not direct the Sub Divisional Officer to take action against the petitioner without compl





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top