Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 52 (CHH)

Dhanaram Lahre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-02-13

NAVIN SINHA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
ORDER Navin Sinha, Actg. C.J. 1. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the State. 2. The present appeal arises from order dated 10.7.2014 allowing Writ Petition (C) No. 504 of 2013. The Learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 30.3.2013 of the Commissioner which in turn had affirmed the order dated 12.10.2012 of the Collector approving the order of the Sub Divisional Office-cum-Prescribed Authority dated 16.4.2012 removing Respondent No. 6 from the post of Sarpanch on grounds of failure to call the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on more than three occasions, under Section 44(7) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 3. No one has appeared on behalf of Respondent 6 despite having filed Vakalatnama. 4. We have also heard the Learned Advocate General who appeared at our request. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that under Section 44(4) of the Act the Sarpanch was required to call meeting of the Gram Panchayat once every month. If the Sarpanch failed to call the meeting for any reason, the Chief Executive Officer could have issued notice after expiry of 25 days from the previous meeting if no fresh date for the meeting had been fixed till such time. He submits that the normal Rule was that the meeting had to be called by the Sarpanch. The calling of the meeting by the Chief Executive Officer was an exception. The exception cannot be made the Rule. If the interpretation put by the Learned Single Judge be applied Section 40(7) of the Act providing for removal of the Sarpanch on failure to call three Meetings will become redundant. Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and others (2001) 6 SCC 260 has no application to the facts of the case as it related to discharge of duties by the President of the Municipality. It was not a case of statutory violations. Respondent 6 in the present case, had not called for any meeting of the Gram Panchayat from August 2010 till May 2011. Reliance was lastly placed on Bharatlal Yadav v. State of M.P. and others (1999) 2 MPLJ 510 . 6. Learned Advocate General submitted that no statutory provision could be interpreted in a manner to render another provision of the same statute redundant. 7. Reliance was lastly placed on Bharatlal Yadav v. State of M.P. and others (1999) 2 MPLJ 510 . 6. Learned Advocate General submitted that no statutory provision could be interpreted in a manner to render another provision of the same statute redundant. 7. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties we are of the considered opinion that under the Act the normal rule is for the Sarpanch to call the meeting every month. If he fails to do so on any particular occasion, he may request the Chief Executive Officer to call for the meeting. The former is the rule and the latter an exception. The exception cannot become the rule. If the Act provides the consequences as what was required to be done in case of failure by the Sarpanch to call three meetings, it has to be given full effect to. Any interpretation which renders Section 44(7) as redundant giving over bearing importance to Section 44(4) as to be avoided. Tarlochan Dev Sharma (2001) 6 SCC 260 (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case as it did not relate to violation of statutory provisions but a stoppage of payment by the President of the Municipality, of already purchased fogging machines, which was alleged to have affected the functioning of the Municipality. 8. The order under appeal is, held to be not sustainable. It is set aside. 9. The appeal is allowed. Appeal Allowed.