g/ CD smGLE BENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI’ISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (C). No. 6?) 9% OF 2011 PETITIONER : gharamchund Kunjam, aged abou‘r 40 years, S/o Bhagwani Surpanch Gram Panchayaf Kumhankhar, Welfare Department D.K.$.Bhawan Raipur (6.6.) 2./$ub Divisional Officer (R) Uffer‘ BasTer' Kanker‘ (6.6.) 3./ Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayaf Narharpur, Disff. UHer' Basfer Kanker (6.6.) 4.“ Tahsildar cum Presiding Officer Narharpur, Dis’rf. Nor'rh Basfer Kanker (6.6.) WRIT PEFI'IION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER :— As sfafed above in cause ’ri‘rle. Janpad Panchayaf Narharpur, DisH. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1: / Sfafe of Chha‘i‘iisgarh through Secretary, Panchayat & Social 2") HIGH COI IRT OF CHHA'I'FISGARH AT BU .ASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 5978 of 2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn'LJ. Shri Devesh Verma, Advocate f‘or the petitioner. Slut V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1, 2 and 4. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 10 day ofOctober, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent N0. 2 whereby the petitioner, working as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kumhankhar, District North Bastar, Kanker, has been removed hom his post under the provisions of section 21(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 19.93 (for short, ‘the Adhimy’am, 1993 o. Shri Velma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the elected Sarpaneh of Gram Panchayat, Kttmhankltar, Uttar Bastar Kanker. An application was made by the Panchas under the provisions of section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, for initiation of no—contidence motion against the petitioner, pursuant to which, the Tahsildar was appointed as Presiding OEicer. Thereaiter, resolution was passed on 11.07.2011 for removal of the petitioner nom the post of Sarpanch.. Pursuant to the said resolution, the impugned order dated 13.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) was passed Without adording the petitioner, an opportunity to put forward h1s ease. V£ AFR PETITIONER X : Dharamchand Kunjam. VERSI IS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhaitisgarh & Others. 20 b) Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Section 21(4) ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993 provides that ifthe Sarpanch desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, he shall within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as possible, within thilty days hom the date on which it was received by him and his decision shall be final. In the case on hand, the order under section 21(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was passed on 13.07.2011 (Annexure P/l). The petitioner, without taking recourse to provisions of section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, had approached this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. No exceptional circumstances has either been pointed out nor has been pleaded in the petition so asto invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian On this ground alone, the petition fails as the petitioner has failed to avail the altemative statutory remedy available to him under the provisions of law. However, on merit, there is no case as the no— confidence motion was carried out against the petitioner by thumping majority as 19 members voted in favour of no- confidence motion, one against the no-confidenee motion, and one vote was declared as invalid. Election is the basic pillar of the democratic set up. A candidate who participates in the election process gets elected by majority of votes polled in his favour. In a similar way, when a no-confrdence motion is carried against an elected candidate, and the motion is 3N carried out by a. clear majority, the same cannot. be held as illegal merely on the ground of some technical defects and the allegations made by the petitioner, which are not. supported by any documentary evidence, or otherwise. The no-confidence motion has been passed by a clear majority in a. proper resolution held in presence of the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no finding has been recorded. It. is not evident Eom any document which has been annexed with the writ. petition that the finding has not been recorded. However, it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner himself that the no confidence motion moved against the petitioner has been carried out. by clear majority. This Court, in Ghanshyam Yadav v. Rameshwar Sahu & Others’ held that no prejudice; whatsoever is caused in any manner when the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority. Thus, no confidence motion cannot be declared as null and void. In the instant case, 19 members voted in favour of the no-confidence motion, 1 candidate voted against the no-confidence motion and one vote was declared invalid. Thus, it is clear that the members of the Gram Panchayat have lost faith in the Sarpanch, and thus, he was removed by no-confidence motion. In View of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugied order which is legal, just and proper. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI ‘l 2007 (2) BLJ 181 ' Judge