Advocates:
['A K YADAV', '', 'VIKAS PANDEY', 'A G', '', 'R S BAGHEL', 'S K GUHA']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 1962 of 2014

• Jogi Ram S/o Dashrath Verma (Lodhi), aged about 47 years, Sarpanch

Gram-Pnchayat- Takam, Janpad Panchayat-Berla, Police Station & Tahsil-

Berla, District-Bemetara C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat,

Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

2. The Commissioner, Durg Division, District Durg C.G.

3. The Collector Bemetara District Bemetara C.G.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer Saja District Bemetara C.G.

5. Narayan S/o Khuman Patel R/o Village Takam, Janpad Panchayat-

Berla, Police Station & Tahsil-Berla, District-Bemetara C.G.

6. Mithlesh S/o Ude Ram Patel R/o Village Takam, Janpad Panchayat-

Berla, Police Station & Tahsil-Berla, District-Bemetara C.G.

7. Rajesh S/o Budhram Patel R/o Village Takam, Janpad Panchayat-Berla,

Police Station & Tahsil-Berla, District-Bemetara C.G.

8. Hemant S/o Vishambhar Nishad R/o Village Takam, Janpad Panchayat-

Berla, Police Station & Tahsil-Berla, District-Bemetara C.G.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Shri AK Yadav, Advocate

For Respondent No.1 to 4/State :

Shri Sunil Pillai, Panel Lawyer for the

State.

For Respondent No.5 & 6

:

Shri RS Baghel, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Order On Board

24/03/2015

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2

1.

The petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by

the Collector, Bemetara, whereby he has been removed from the office of

Sarpanch, village Takam, Tahsil Barela, District Bemetara and the revisional

order passed by the Commissioner, Durg, dismissing his revision

application.

2.

Insofar as the order of removal is concerned, the elected term of the

petitioner having already been expired, the same has been rendered

infructuous, however, the challenge to the consequent order of

disqualification to contest election of any office under the Panchayat for a

period of six years, the petition still survives. The allegation against the

petitioner is of cutting large number of Babool trees standing on

Government land without seeking permission from the competent officer of

the forest department.

3.

The petitioner would draw attention of the Court to the document Annexure

P-5 and the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat on 30-6-2010 and

25-2-2012 to argue that the trees were cut after seeking permission from the

forest department and in any case the forest officers were in the know of

things, because such cutting of trees was necessary for carrying out

plantation. He would further submit that the petitioner has acted bonafidely,

therefore, the removal and disqualification deserves to be set aside.

4.

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondents No.5 & 6 would

submit that the petitioner is guilty of cutting huge number of Babool trees,

therefore, the order does not call for any interference.

5.

Petitioner's defence stems out of the letter (Annexure P-5), written by the

Forest Range Officer, Bemetara to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),

Saja, district Bemetara (for short 'the SDO'). It is this letter, which according

3

to the petitioner, would amount to permission by a forest officer for cutting of

Babool trees.

6.

Learned counsel would persuade this Court to go through the entire

documents and on his persuasion, this Court read the entire document only

to find out that the author of the communication i.e. the Forest Range Officer

has not only tried to make out a case in petitioner's favour but also has tried

to save his own skin because the said forest officer was also responsible for

illegal felling of trees.

7.

It appears, because the said forest officer permitted the petitioner and kept

his eyes closed when such cutting was going on, he prepared this document

by referring to the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat, as if, the