BEW 0© IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPUR WRJT PETITIONiC) N0. s-a^'2-OF2006 PETITIONER: VERSUS Dr. K.D. Bandhe, S/o- Shri Mahettar Bandhe, Aged About-55 Years, R/o- Village- Hardi, Post-Bodtara, Thesil- Lormi, Distt.-Bilaspur (C.G.) iB RESPONDENT (S): 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through it's Secretary Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) .+* ^^'••''. .>' ^^^ "y ^••"^•^^ ^•' -Vs' ^.^ >^ i^-- ^^ A ^w "'^* \("»- ^ ^ v v^ ^ & / 2. Additional Collector, Bilaspur Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) / 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) / 4. Thesildar, Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) <"5. Gram Panchayat, Hardi Through It's Secretary Post-Bodtara, Thesil- Lormi, Distt.- Bilaspur(C.G.) APARNA \% M/fi/T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227_QFJHECQNSTITUTION OF JNDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRITIN THENATURE OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION I ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE. ~-——— - .1-'< ^Pt HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRIT PETmON N0.5042 OF 2006 DR. K.D.Bandhe Vs. State of Chhattisaarh and others Shri Vinay Pandev, counsel for Vne petitioner. Shri N.K-Agrawal, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER f.4"' Ssstsmber. 2006; SUNILKUMARSINHA.J (1) The petitioner, who was an etocted Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Hardi, has called in question the legallty, validity and propriety of order dated 29.8.2006, passed by the Additional Collector, Bllaspur in a Panchayat Dlspute (Reference) No.67/A-89(6)/2005-2006. By the aforesaid order, the Additional Collector has dismissed the Reference, made by the petitioner, challenging the validity of the motion of 'No Confldence', canied out under sub- Sectton (1) of SeeBon 21 of theM.P. (C.G.) Panchayat Ra] Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993, hereinafter referred tn as the Acf. 0} The brief facts are that the peb'tioner was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchavat, Hardl In the elections which took place in the vear 2004- 2005. It appears that a notice of no- confidence was submitted by the Panchas against the petitioner under Rute 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayaf Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-PresIdent Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam 1994, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule'. On recehrina the nofice of such motlon, under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, ^••\, the Prescribed Authority, after satisfving himself on the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21 (3), fixed a date of meeting regarding the said motion. The datewasfixed as 12.6.2006. As per the averments ofthe writ petition, the aforesaid motion was passed, as 13 votes were aiven in favour of the motion and 2 votes were given against the motion and 2 other votes were declared invalid. The petitioner chatlenged the validitv of this motion, carried out under sub-Section (1), by referring the dispute to the Collector. A copy of the dispute has been filed as Annexure P-5. (3) A perusal of Annexure P-5 would show that many grounds, challenaing the validity of the said motion were raised by the petitioner. When this matter came UD for hearing before the Additional Collector, he dismissed the aforesaid dispute by passing a two lines order on 29.6.2006 in the following manner: —i->ii-'f—it.U!>.i 'FTT r'i-^'~ji'l.\-fi\ <>\ -& A Sifec];,", ^RTIc[ r^ f | 3!fcj<q|," g^Tc? •^ TRET A 13 °?T TiS-iT f^ ^ 02 m'tT£{T 02 TRT f^5 t ! STS.I^i' 3!f;)?q!\" ?R?ncT ^if ^ATT]- T"A?T ^ I" ~iiM\t L' i It is this order of the Additional Collector, passed in the said dispute, is challenged bythe petitioner. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed bv the Additionaf Collector is a crvptic order, which does not reflect to the grounds raised by the petitioner in the dispute. His submission is that the said unreasoned order passed bv the Collector is not in accordance with law and the same should be struck down. (5) On the contrary, learned Dy. Advocate General argues on merits of the motion carried out and supported the outcome of the order. His M. submission is that though the reasons are not recorded in the order, but the ultimate result arrived at by the Collector appears to be correct^ because the motion was rightly carried out against the petitioner with a majoritv of13: 2 : 2 votes. (6) I have heard learned counsel for the oarties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition. (7) Section 21 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam deals with the provisions of no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. Sub Section (1) of Section 21 provides that on a motion of no-confidence being passed by a resolution, passed bv the majoritv of not less than three fourth of the panchas present and votina and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Saroanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith. Sub Section (2) of the said Section provides that notwithstanding anvthing contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up- Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no- confidence is discussed against him. It further provides that such meeting shall be convened in such manner as mav be prescribed and shait be presided over by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint. The Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, asthe case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take part in, the proceedina of the meeting. Further sub-Section (3) provides ttiat no-confidence motion shall not lie aaainst the Sarpanch or Uo-SarDanch within a period of- (i) one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up- Sarpanch enter their respective office; (ii) six months presiding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires: ./}- (iii) one vear from the date on which previous motion of no- confidence was rejected. C8) It is thereafter, sub-Section M) of Section 21 was further brought and a provision regarding reference of a dispute was also added along with the above provisions in Section 21. The placement of word like "dispute" in sub-Section (4) of Section 21 by the legislature and calling for a decision on the said dispute is self evident to raise a presumption that if some controversial point with relation to passing of a no-confidence motion is raised before the Collector, the Collector has to decide it by applying the correct law to the matter raised and he has to pass an order so as to settle down the dispute raised by the party concerned. One more portion ofthe statute which also receives importance,on its grafting is that the decision so taken by the Collector on the dispute referred to him shall be final. Such expression further makes it clear that the disputes, which are raised before the Collector are to be decided by him in a positive manner so as to reach a finality and they are not to be disposed of by passing a superficial order like the order in the present case. (9) Examining the scope of Section 21 (4) of the Act, the High Court of Madhva Pradesh observed in the matter of Kandhilal Patel and others V. State of M.P. and others. reported in 1999 <2) JLJ 109 that the lanauage emDloved in sub-Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act clearlv shows the intention of the leaislature. It never wanted to treat the dispute at par with an appeal under Section 91. It appears that the legislature was alive to the situation that in an appeal, a fact finding enquiry may not be made by the apoellate forum, and in a case where the motion is carried, sometimes factual alleaations may be made or factual disputes can be raised. The word 'dispute' in its ordinary sense would mean that the person aagrieved bv an order is challenging its correctness, validity and propriety not only on the legai aspects, but even on the factuat aspects as he is dissatisfied with the resolution carrying the motion. When a dispute under Section 21 (4) is raised, it cannot be decided as an appeal. The party aggrieved by the resolution can challenge its correctness, as observed, on legal grounds so also on the factuai aspects. (10) Therefore, it is apparent from the lanauage of Section 21(4) that in a dispute referred bv a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom the motion of no-confidence is carried out, every point raised by him, challenging the validity of the motion, so carried out, is to be decided by the Collector so as to result the order into finality as no further statutory remedy has been provided in the Act or the Rules aaainst the said order passed by the Collector and if such an order is passed in a superficial manner, without assianing any reason, it cannot be sustained in the eve of law. (11) It needs to be emphasized thatthe Collector, while dealing with the dispute referred to him, against carrying out of a no-confidence motion, has to record reasons as to why he is satisfied that the motion was carried out properly or why he is dissatisfied with the carrying out of the motion under challenge. The language of Section 21(4) is abundantly clear to show that the scope of interference by the Collector is not only restricted to the question of law, on which, the dispute is based, but the same also provides for a decision on question of fact, which equally affects the validity of the motion. (12) In the present case, the order would ao to show that no reasons, whatsoever, have been indicated about the satisfaction ofthe said motion. No grounds raised by the petitioner have been discussed by the Collector and the order has been passed. The reasons are the live links between the mind of decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or the conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice (See Alexander Machinerv Dudlv Ltd. Vs. Crab Tree. 974. LCR 120: (1974 LCR 120 )}, reference made in para 10 of the judgment rendered in the matter of Reaional Manaaer. UPSRTC. Etawah and others vs. Hotit Lal and another fAIR 2003 SC 1462). f-. SUNITA/ GOWRI (13) Since the impugned order has been passed, without assigning anv reason by the Collector, the same deserves to be and is accordinglv set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector for passing a reasoned order on each point raised in dispute referred to him by the petitioner. Since the impediment of time has been laid down by the legislature in sub-Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the petitioner is directed to a.DDear before the Collector on 25 SeDtember. 2006 with a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstanees of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Sdf- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge