1 2025:CGHC:1605 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 114 of 2025 1 - Bhagwat Prasad Sahu S/o Late Mannu Lal Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Nawagaon (L), Tahsil Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 Gram Vikas Samiti Nawagaon (L), Resident Of Village Nawagaon (L), Tahsil Nawapara, District Raipur, Chattisgarh. 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Upper/collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) And Competent Authority Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 10/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner is questioning the order of Commissioner, Raipur dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) whereby the Commissioner has stayed the order of Additional Collector dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure P-2), wherein the Additional Collector has quashed the order passed by the SDO dated 13.09.2024 by which the SDO by exercising its power under Section 39 (1) of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 ( hereinafter referred as “Act of 1993’) suspended the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Commissioner staying the order of Additional Collector is absolutely illegal. He further submits that the Additional Collector has passed the order dated 23.12.2024, in the appeal filed by the petitioner by questioning order of the SDO by which he has suspended the petitioner using his power under Section 39 (1) of the Act of 1993. He further submits that the SDO has passed the suspension order though there is no show cause notice or charge sheet against the petitioner. Hence the order of the SDO was 3 contrary to the provisions under Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act of 1993. Hence, the order of additional Collector in favour of petitioner is just and proper and in accordance with provisions prescribed under Section 39 of the Act of 1993. He further submits that however the Commissioner without appreciating the provisions prescribed under Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act of 1993, has stayed the order of the appellate authority i.e. Additional Collector dated 23.12.2024. 3. Learned State counsel per contra submits that the Commissioner has stayed the order of the Additional Collector on the basis of facts and circumstances, hence, the order of the Commissioner is just and proper and needs no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the Commissioner, Additional Collector and order of SDO dated 30.12.2024, 23.12.2024 and 13.09.2024 respectively. 5. Perusal of the order of the Additional Collector shows that SDO has passed the suspension order of the petitioner in exercise of Section 39 (1) (a) (b) of Act of 1993, though no show cause notice along with charge sheet has been served for removal of the petitioner from the elected office and no charges have been framed in any criminal proceeding as prescribed under Section 39 (1) (a) of the Act of 1993. It further shows that the order of the SDO has been quashed by the Additional Collector in the appeal filed by the petitioner in Panchayat case No. 202409111100083. 4 The order of the Additional Collector appears to be just and proper. He has rightly quashed the order of the SDO as the suspension order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the SDO is without appreciating the facts and without following the conditions prescribed in the Section 39 (1) (a) (b) of the Rules of 1995 to suspend the elected Sarpanch. 6. Considering the facts and law as stated above, it is observed that, the order of the Additional Collector dated 23.12.2024, passed in appeal filed by the petitioner is just and proper, hence the impugned order of the Commissioner staying the effect and operation of order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Additional Collector is bad in law. The Commissioner has passed the order without appreciating the facts and law, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner is quashed. The petition is allowed. The commissioner is directed to decide the revision filed by the petitioner in accordance with law on its own merits. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti