1 2025:CGHC:12167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 105 of 2025  Bhuvneshwar Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav Aged About 48 Years Posted As Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sirsakhurd Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 3. The SDO (R) Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 4. Gram Panchayat Sirsakhurd Through The Secretary Village Sirsakhurd District - Durg (C.G.) 5. Santosh Nishad S/o Shri Baldev Nishad Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Sirsakhurd Tashil And District - Durg (C.G.) 6. Commissioner Durg Division District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Shraddha Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sundar Lal Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11. 03.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records of the case and set-aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 (ANNEXURE P/1), issued by respondent Commissioner and further be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sirsakhurd, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petitioner may be given.” 2. The facts of the present case are that in the month of December, 2020, an election was conducted in Gram Panchayat Sirsakhurd and respondent No. 5 was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Sirsakhurd. Thereafter, a proceeding under Section 40 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 was initiated against respondent No. 5 and he was removed from the post of Sarpanch, Sirsakhurd and disqualified to contest the election for a further period of six years vide order dated 04.03.2021. Respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Durg and the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2021. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 filed WPC No. 4162 of 2021 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2022 and then, he filed WA No. 20 of 2022. In between, a mid-term election was conducted and the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. Thereafter, a writ appeal filed by respondent No. 5 was allowed and the matter was remitted back to Sub- Divisional Officer. As the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch; thus, he preferred SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is observed that if, however, the respondent No. 5 is held disqualified in the remitted proceedings, then the petitioner would be continue to work as a Sarpanch. Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg removed respondent No. 5 from the post of Sarpach vide order dated 15.01.2024. The petitioner 3 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Durg and the Collector, Durg set- aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg on the ground that due opportunity of hearing was not provided to respondent No. 5 and he was reinstated as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sirsakhurd vide order dated 22.08.2024, against which, the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Commissioner, Division Durg along with an application for the grant of stay and the said application was rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 26.12.2024, against that order, this petition has been filed. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 5 was disqualified for 6 years under the provisions of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and in the by-election, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch; therefore, there was no occasion or reason for the Collector to hand over the charge of Sarpanch to respondent No. 5. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would submit that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg under the provisions of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was set-aside by the Collector, Durg vide order dated 22.08.2024 and the charge of Sarpanch was handed over to him. He would further submit that a fresh election has already been held at Gram Panchayat Sirsakhurd in the month of February- March, 2025 and the petitioner has been elected as Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch, whereas, respondent No. 5 is elected as a member of Janpad Panchayat. He would also submit that as the earlier tenure of the Sarpanch has already expired, hence, the instant petition has become infructous. 5. Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the order passed by the Commissioner, Division Durg. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. A perusal of the documents would show that respondent No. 5 was removed from the Office of Sarpanch vide order dated 04.03.2021. By-election was held on 22.01.2022 and the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in the election. Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Collector and the same was allowed vide order dated 22.08.2024 and the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer(Revenue), Durg dated 04.03.2021 and 15.01.2024 was set-aside. The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Durg Division along with an application for the grant of stay however the application for stay was rejected by the Commissioner, Durg Division vide order dated 26.12.2024. 8. Further development is that a fresh election of Gram Panchayat, Sirsakhurd has taken place in the month of February-March, 2025 and the petitioner has been elected as Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch, whereas respondent No. 5 is elected as a member of Janpad Panchayat. 9. Taking into consideration the subsequent developments and particularly that the earlier tenure has already expired, nothing survives for adjudication. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby dismissed being rendered infructuous. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue the revision pending before the Commissioner, Durg Division. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant