5l” IN THE HGNGURABLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASI’UR PETlTiONER: f} VIC/{W C wmmiéTITION No. [é {j ">"/ 20014 .y/Ramhai Singh S/o Kanwal Singh, Cast: Kanwar (S/T), aged about 38 years, R/o Chhuiha—Pahargaon, Tahsil: Kartala, District: Korpé, Chattisgarh, / tate of Chhattisgarh, through it’s Pn‘ncipal Secretary, Dept. bf Panchayat 85 Social Welfare. DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgaxh. 02.Collector, Korba, Chhattisgarh. 03.31113 Divisional Ofiicer & Prescribed Officer under Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, Korba, Chhattisgarh. Writ Petition under article 227/ 226 of Constitution of India. Versus i REsPONDENTs: gy’is . .. K \ M EEGH CGURT OF JUDICATURE CEHAT‘TISGARH AT BELASPUR Writ Petition Naa 1643 of 200i Ramhai Singh VersuS State of Chhattisgarh and others ?resent: Eon’ble MmJustice Fakhmtléin,Ag. C.J. For petitioner: Shri KK. Naik, Advocate. For re$pondents Shri Ranbir Singh G‘A. with Shri Rajiv Shriva$tava, Adv. For iniervener: Shri YaShwant Tiwari, Adv. GRDER By the instant iaetition filed under Article 226/227 0f the Constitution of India petitioner calls in question the legality, Vélidity and propriety of the impugned order dated 178.2000 passed by responcient no.3,Sub Divisiooal Officer] Prescribed Gfficer under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam by which no confidence motion againet the petitioner was rescheduled for 27.8.2OOL The petitioner further states that though a revision against the aforesaid order was filed before the Collector, Korba, but the same \\ having not been considered in' time, has become infructuous. \ \ \ 2. The factS giving rise to filing of this petition are that the petitioner. was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pahadgaon. On a no confidence motion moved by few Panchas, the Prescribed Authority, respondent no.3 directed the Additional Tehsildar, Karatala , to convene a meeting of Panchas on 8.8.2001 to consider the no confidence motion. However, on the said date, according to the petitioner, for want of quorum the no confidence motion could not be taken up and accordingly the Additional Tehsildar submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Officer stating that because of the tense law and order situation prevailing in the village at the relevant time i the no confidence motion {could not be taken up therefore a request was made for fixing another date for caeting voter; on the no confidence motion against the petitioner.‘ On receipt of the aforesaid report from the Additional Tehsildar, respondent no.8 by the impugned order dt. 17,.8.2001 fixed 27.8.2001 as the next date for considering the petitioner. IOK no confidence motion against the 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.3 rescheduling the voting on no confidence motion against the petitioner and fixing another date as 27.8.2001 for the purpose, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Collector,. respondent no.2 on 25.8.2001. However, the Collector did not pass any order on the revision before 27.8.2001 and as such the voting on no confidence motion took place on the date rescheduled as \ 27.8.2000 in which out of 10 members present 9 have voted in favour of the no confidence motion. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits ”that the nnpugned o‘rder adjourning the meeting fixed for no confidence motion is contrary to the provisions of Section 21 {3) of the MP. Panchayat Raj Adhiniym, 1993 and also in violation ofkthe principles 01" natural justice and as such the Same is liable to be quashed 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents as also the intervener support the impugned order and submit that there is no Violation of‘the provisions of the Adhiniyam , the order adjourning the meeting for no confidence motion was valid and thus on 27/8/2001 the no confidence motion was validly passed against the writ petitioner as majority of the members present have voted in favour of no confidence motion. In the said connection reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision in Muku Bai Vs. State ofMP. and others (1998(2) MPLJ 661) as also the decision in Kaushalya Vs. Additionai’ Collector (1998(1) MPWN Note No.236). 6. In the case of Muku Bai ($upra) the Division Bench held that “No confidence motion — Requirement to convene meeting Within 15 days as provided in Rule is l\mandatory — Such meeting can be adjourned because of reasons beyond control”. The relevant observations made \ —A‘~ under : “The next question that arises for consideration 1's Whether the meeting fixed for no confidence motion can be adjourned_ or not. We “have already @ quoted Section 21 of the Act 1994. If the meeting of no confidence motion has been convened then can it be adjourned or not ? Section 21 of the MP. General Clauees Act, 1957, which is relevant for our purpose, reads as under : ‘21. Power to make, to inciude, power to add3 to amend, vary or rescind orders, etc.- Where, by any Madhya Pradesh Act, a power to issue notification, orders, rules or bye laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisabie in the like manner and subject to the like sanctions and conditions, if any, to add to amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye laws so issued. ’ ’\ \ \ Therefore, invoking Section 21 of the \ Act of 1957, which enabies the by the Division Bench in the said case in para 10 read as authority which paSSes the orders can revoke, amend, rescind; therefore, the prescribed authority which fixes the date of ho confidence can adjourn it also As quoted above, Section 21 or Section 44 of the Act or the Rules framed there under, nowhere prohibit the prescribed authority to adjourn the meeting. Therefore, the meeting of no confidence motion can be adjourned. It is not right to say that if the meeting has been once convened Within the statutory period, then it cannot be adjourned, the Rule 3 (8) will not bar it. If it is to be interpreted that if meeting of no confidence is convened Within 15 days and on account of law and order problem or for other unavoidable reasons, the motion cannot be debated then the bar of 15 days under Rule 3(3) will come in the way that the meeting cannot be convened that will arnount to shifting the democratic process. Therefore, we hold that under Rule 3’ (3), the convening of meeting within 15 days is must, it is a mandatory and if the meeting which is convened within 15 days could not proceed because of the reaSon beyond controi 0f the pregcribed authority, it can be adjourned and the bar of Rule 3(Sj wiil net come in the way.” 7. Having thus considered the circumstailcec of the caSe, particuhrly in View of the Division Bench decision referred to above, it there is no irregularity or illegality 1‘11 adjourning the date of no confioence motion, which had occasioneci due to law and order problem preyaih'ng in the village and as euch the meeting was adjourned because of reasone beyond control. facts and is; held that 8. For the reasons aforeeaid, the petition fails and is: hereby diemieeed. Ann‘Wa Sd/— Acting Chief Justice Q1 31mm [OilzeGE