^ .^ f <(^o' ' ri>4^ ^^:e^ ^^^>^-" HLGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. fl4'j-9 / 2006 Petitioner Shri Ram Kol, S/o Late Rainlal, Aged about 38 ycars, Sarpanch (reinoved), R/o village- Khongapani, Coal Dafai, District- Koria (C.G.). Versus - Respondents 1. 2. ^ /3. Stote of ChhRttisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D. K. S. Bhawan. Raipiir (C.G.). Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue). Manendr^arh, Koria, District- Koria(C.G.). Tahsildar, Manendragarh, District- Koria (C.G.). Collector, Koria (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION, CBRTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. €bS^ 6- 7GV^ ^ •tf> /4. H!GH COURT OF JUDiCATURE AT BiLASPUR. CHHATTISSARH Writ Petition No.2419 of 2006 Shri Ram Koi -Versus- State of Chhattisgarh & others th POST FOR ORDER ON 12[" JULY,2006 i;,f Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge °IK HIGHCOURT OF JUD1CATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Writ Petition No.2419 of 2006 Shri Ram Kol • -Versus- State of Chhattisgarh Sa others Present: Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate: Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate: For petitioner. For respondents, •I*-. (Passed on \i- Julv. 2006) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner has questioned legaiity, propriety and correctness of the resolution Annexure-P/3 passed by the Gram Panchayat Khongapani whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch by way of no confidence motion. 2. <t Srieffacts leading to filing ofthis wr'rt petition are that on 10-4-2006 one Up- Sarpanch and 13 Panch of Gram Panchayat Khongapani gave a notice under Rule 3 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Ziia Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Niyam, 1994) to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority on receiving notice and after satisfying himseif about the admissibility of the notice, fixed 24' April 2006 for consideration of the motion in a meeting to be held in Gram Panchayat at 12 noon and Tehsiidar Mr, J.L. Pemra was appointed as Presiding Officer. Notices were despatchad and meeting was held on 24 Apri! 2006 at 12 noon and in that meeting vide resolution Annexure-P/3 15 Panchas cast their votes in favour of the motion and one votg was cast against the motion. (• The Prescribed Authority heid that the motion is carried out. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 25-4-2006 gave information to the Collector. 3. The main challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioner to the said resolution is that the notice to the prescribed authority was not given in conformity with sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Niyam, 1994 in the prescribed form. The second ground of challenge is that the Sarpanch i.e. petitioner herein was not given opportunity to speak at the time of motion in conformity with sub-rule (3) of Rule '5 and same was the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, ! have perused the documents. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 is reproduced as under:- "Elected members of Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat desiring to move a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch or Up- Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat or President or Vice President of Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, shail give a notioe thereof to fhe prescribed authority in the form appended to these rutes." 5. Perusai of the form shows that it is to be addressed to the prescribed authority and then paragraphs contemplate that the persons who want to move a motion to sign that and they should mention against whom no confidence motion is proposed, and thereafter, they have to give grounds for no confidence motion. Copy of the notice which was given by Panchas and Up-Sarpanch in this case to the prescribed authority is Annexure-P/1 . It is true that same is not exactiy as per the format. But, perusal of the said notice shows that it is addressed to the prescribed authority and the grounds for no confidence motion have also been mentioned in which it has been written that Sarpanch of the village is working arbitrarily, in his own way and he is misusing the Gram Panchayat's fund. He is not hearing Panchas, and all the sianatorv Panchas are sufferer; therefore, they have decided to brinc \--' no conftdence motion against the Sarpanch. If no action is taken, then they should be suspended, as Sarpanch, Secretary and one Panch are running whole show and Panchas are not being heard. 6. It is true that the format has been prescribed but the contents of format are that the signatory Panchas should give notice against whom they want to bring no confidence motion. In the notice Annexure-P/1 Panchas and Up- Sarpanch have categoricaliy stated that they want to bring no confidence motion against the Sarpanch as he is worklng arbitrarily, in his own way, he is misustng She Panchayat's fund, and whoie activities of Panchayat are being run by Sarpanch, Secretary and One Panch in their own vvay. Therefore, grounds have also been mentioned in the notice Annexure-P/1 , as such, i am of the considered opinion that notice Annexure-P/1 is sufficient compliance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Niyam, 1994. It cannot be said that it is not in conformity with sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Niyam, 1994. The only difference is that it has been written in paragraphs whereas, the form prescribed in the rules, in the first paragraph it is to be mentioned that against whom no confidence motion is being brought and thereafter jrounds for no confidence motion 1, 2, 3,.... But, as has been mentioned above that in Annexure-P/1 grounds have also been given by Panchas and Up-Sarpanch as well as against whom they want to bring no confidence motion, therefore, in any manner, it cannot be said that the said notice is not in conformity with the ruies, as such argument advanced by learned counse! for the petitioner is devoid of merit. 7. As far as second ground is concerned, perusal of the proceeding Annexure- P/3 shows that in the meeting in a!l 16 members of Panchayat were present inciuding the petitioner and thereafter the presiding officer informed the Panchas who moved no confidence motion that if they want, they can withdraw, on which they said that they do not want to withdraw the mqtion. Barve !t is rnentioned that opportunity was given for expressing their opinion on the motion. In the 3 paragraph, it has bsen mentioned that even Sarpanch was given opportunity to speak. After discussion, the presiding officer gave baliots to al! the members and they were informed the manner in which they have to cast their votes i.e. those who want to cast their vote in favour of the motion have to affix the symbo! of "^" and those who want to cast their vote against the motion have to affix the symboi "X", therefore, second ground taken by the petitioner is also not fenable as the petitioner was given opportunity to speak. 8. No other point was raised by learned counse! for the petitioner before the Court. 9. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is 'nereby dismtesed at the admission staae itseff. No costs. ^ Sd/- /B L.C.Bhadoo Judge \'.1