ORDER : 1. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the proceeding being drawn by the District Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Revenue Case No.B-121/2022-23. 2. The learned Collector has issued notice to the Petitioner in the said proceeding under Section 36(2) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, 'the Adhiniyam') calling upon his explanation as to why he should not be disqualified from holding the post of Member of the Janpad Panchayat, Kusmi falls under District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. The charge levelled against the Petitioner is that of encroaching upon the government land. 3. The solitary contention raised by the Petitioner while assailing the proceeding drawn under Section 36(2) of the Adhiniyam is that, the complainant in the instant case i.e., Respondent No.3, had already challenged the appointment of the Petitioner as a Member of the Janpad Panchayat, Kusmi by raising an Election Petition i.e. E.P. No.A-89/2021-22 under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam. The Petitioner had contended that the ground of encroachment taken by the Complainant in the said Election Petition was also a ground for challenge to the election of the Petitioner. Contention of the Petitioner also was that since the Election Petition stands rejected vide Order dated 19.1.2022, the Complainant thereafter cannot be permitted to reagitate the same issue now by filing a complaint under Section 36(2) of the Adhiniyam. 4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that once when the matter has already been put to test in an Election Petition and a decision having been passed, the provision of Section Section 36(2) of the Adhiniyam would now not be applicable so far as the complaint made by the Complainant is concerned. According to learned Counsel for Petitioner, clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Adhiniyam starts with the word "subsequently" and which means that any illegalities or irregularities committed by the elected Member subsequent to his election, alone can be taken note of while drawing a proceeding under Section 36(2) of the Adhiniyam. In the instant case, no such action is alleged against the Petitioner subsequent to his election, therefore, the proceeding drawn under Section 36(2) of the Adhiniyam is totally uncalled for and deserves to be rejected and dropped. 5. In the instant case, no such action is alleged against the Petitioner subsequent to his election, therefore, the proceeding drawn under Section 36(2) of the Adhiniyam is totally uncalled for and deserves to be rejected and dropped. 5. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, opposing the petition, submits that it is a case where the two proceedings are considered and decided under two different provisions just because the Election Petition stands decided and the fact of encroachment being one of the grounds, does not mean that the proceeding under Section 36(2) of the Adhiniyam cannot be invoked by the Competent Authority on a complaint in respect of encroachment made by any elected Member. 6. Learned State Counsel further submits that the proceeding under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam has been rejected on technicalities i.e., on the Election Petition being barred by limitation, as such, the Authorities have not got an opportunity of entering into the merits of the case, therefore, the impugned proceeding now under challenge also does not warrant interference as it would be now a matter of enquiry by the concerned Authority so far as the alleged encroachment is concerned. 7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the provisions as stipulated under Section 36 of the Adhiniyam which prescribes various nature of acts which would be brought within the ambit of disqualification. Sub-section (1) of Section 36 deals with different circumstances when a person becomes disqualified from being an office-bearer of Panchayat. Sub-section (2) of Section 36 prescribes the procedures under which the disqualification has to be decided. Sub-section (1) of Section 36 deals with different circumstances when a person becomes disqualified from being an office-bearer of Panchayat. Sub-section (2) of Section 36 prescribes the procedures under which the disqualification has to be decided. For ready reference, sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Adhiniyam is being reproduced herein under:- "(2) If any person having been elected as an office-bearer of Panchayat,- (a) subsequently becomes subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in sub-section (1) and such disqualification is not removable or being removable is not removed or becomes office-bearer concealing his disqualification for it which has not been questioned and decided by any election petition under Section 122; (b) accepts employment as legal practitioner against the Panchayat; (c) absents himself from three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat or its Committee or does not attend half the number of meetings held during the period of six months without the leave of the Panchayat; he shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), cease to be such office-bearer and his office shall become vacant: Provided that where an application is made by an office-bearer to the Panchayat for leave to absent himself under clause (c) and the Panchayat fails lo inform the applicant of its decision on the application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application, the leave applied for, shall be deemed to have been granted by the Panchayat." 8. It would also be relevant at this juncture to quote clause (q) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Adhiniyam, which holds that a person who has encroached upon any land and buildings of Panchayat or Government would stand disqualified from being an office-bearer of Panchayat. For ready reference, clause (q) is also being reproduced below:- "(q) Has encroached upon any Land and Buildings of Panchayat or Government." 9. A plain reading of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Adhiniyam would clearly reflect that the proceeding under subsection (2) of Section 36 has to be drawn in respect of any of the clauses that are mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 36 prescribing the disqualifications, particularly on those grounds which have not been questioned and decided by way of an Election Petition under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam. 10. 10. In the instant case, though there was an Election Petition filed, the same has not been decided on merits. The Election Petition got rejected on the ground of the same being barred by limitation. As such, the grounds on which the Election Petition was raised have not been touched by the Authority hearing the Election Petition. 11. Under the circumstances, if there is any of the disqualifications which are otherwise reflected in clauses under sub-section (1) of Section 36, it would always be open for the Authorities concerned to proceed in accordance with law invoking the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Adhiniyam. 12. The word "subsequently" used in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Adhiniyam does not in any manner mean an irregularity or illegality or an encroachment or an act of disqualification on the part of the elected office-bearer subsequent to his coming into the office alone. It would also be applicable in a case where the act has been committed even prior to his election and where this alleged act of disqualification has not been brought to the notice of the Authorities at the time of election nor was it decided in an Election Petition and it could also be a case where there is a deliberate concealment of such act by the concerned elected Member which came to the knowledge of the Complainant subsequently. 13. This Court, thus, finds sufficient force on the submissions made by learned State Counsel in this regard. 14. Even otherwise, merely because the Election Petition questioning the election of the Petitioner having been decided on an earlier occasion, by itself would not be a bar for the Competent Authority to initiate proceeding under Section 36(2) of the Adhiniyam. The Adhiniyam does not provide any such bar from initiating any such proceeding. The only rider which is provided in clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 36 of the Adhiniyam is that it should not be a matter which has been questioned and decided by way of Election Petition under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam. 15. In the instant case, true it is that the proceeding under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam was drawn against the Petitioner but the same got rejected on the ground of limitation. 15. In the instant case, true it is that the proceeding under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam was drawn against the Petitioner but the same got rejected on the ground of limitation. The Authority hearing the Election Petition has not dealt with the subject matter of challenge of the Election Petition on merits. Therefore, the decision taken in the Election Petition cannot be taken as a shield for the Petitioner from being prosecuted in respect of a disqualification which is otherwise envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Adhiniyam and for which a proceeding has been prescribed and drawn under subsection (2) of Section 36 of the Adhiniyam. 16. Thus, for the given facts, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.