•"i .^•fc> <^sy \y- .«•• >$>• IN THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •S€W> WRIT PETITION (C) N0. / 2006 BETWEEN Smt. Nageshwari Devi W/o Shri Devcharan Bhandekar, aged abut 30 year Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Nevdha, Tahsil Sigma District Raipur (C.G.) 1 PETITIONER 6. 7. 8. 9. AND The State of Chhaftisgarh Through: The Panchayat Social W^elfare Department ChhatUsgarh, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.j Prescribed Authority/AdditionaI CoUector, Tehsil Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.) Prescribed Aufhority/Sub Divisional OfEcer, Tehsfl Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) Prescribed Aufhority/Nyab Tahsildar, Tehsil Sunga, District Raipur (C.G.] Secretary, Village Panchayat, Nevdha, Tehsil Simga, Distnct Raipur (C.G.) Dinesh Kumar Nishad S/o Kashi Ram Kevant aged about 35year Lalit Kumar S/o Bhagwati Verma aged about 28 year Shiv Prasad S/o Bahadur Verma aged about 28 year Sanat Kumar S/o Bhilau Sahu aged about 35 year 10. Smt. Rupa Bai W/o Shambhu Kevaat aged about 50 year 11. Smt. Dulari Bai W/o Sevak Ram Yadav aged about 35 year 12. Smt. Gaytri Bai W/o Rani Kumar Sahu aged about 30 year 13. Chinta Ram. S/o Motu-acn Sahu aged about 40 year All resident at Vfllage Nevadha Thana Nevra TehsU Simga Dist. Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITCTION OF INDIA Rr HIGH COURT OF CHHAT-T-ISGARH : BIIASPUR WRIT PETTTION N0. SS20 OF 2006 Smt. Nageshwari Devi Ver$us State of CBhatUsfiarh and others :^ Order post for 30-10-2006 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 1 iS •^ [@^!^ B ^ HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISOftRHsBILASPUR WRI'T PETTTION N0. SS20 OF 2006 Smt. Nageshwarl Devi Versus State of Chhattisgarh 8s Otfaers Pysssii^b 3- Sm.t. Reuu IC-ocIisi', CQLiu.sd for fh.c DefitiQiier. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Dy. Advocate General for the State. O R U E R Per SUri Dhirendra Mishra, J J-tearct on admission. 2. 'i'Jie petitioner has tlted thls pention against the tmpugned order of AnneXure-P/' 1 dated 10- 1Q-2006 passed bv Uie respondent No. 2 wnereby ttie petitlon unaer secuon 5 of Clinattisgarn Pancnayat Kaj Adhtniyam (Appeal & Revision ) Rules, 1995 preferred by the petitioner has beendisinissed. 3. The petitioner was fhe elected Sarpancli of Qrain Panchayat Nevdha, Bloek Simga, District Raipur. T'he meettng of the Panchayat was convenedon 18-08-2006 for fhe purposes of considering no confidence motion ''I ' ' - ./ . • against fhe petitioner and in the said meeting all the 14 panchas includmg the petitioner partieipated and a no confidence motion against fhe petitioner was passed as 11 panetias voted in tavour of ttie motion and oruv 3 caste y meu-votes agaaist tJtie mouon. 'l'tie petitioner cnauengecl tfle above resolution ot no eonfidence passed by tlie panchas before respondent No.2 on fhe ground fhat fhe Sub Divisional Ofiicer issued notice penaining to the meeting ofthe Panchayat for the purposes of considering no contidence motion, nowever, the copy ot cnarges/ coniplaint of the panchas was not supplied to the petitioner. 'The above notice was also not served upon uie petitioner betore seven days which vitiates the total proceecling ot the no conlldence motion. It was also contended fhat fhe peutioner was not afforded an opportunity to put up her case in fhe meettng and ttie whole proceedmg was malatidelv initiated at the instance \i!» of Panchayat Sachiv and Up-Sarpaiich. Her oblections were ignored and no coniidence motion was passed. The resporident No.2 - fhe Pi'escribed Authori.tv after perusing the bnginal record and hearing fhe respective parties dismissed the petition wiffa a findlng fhat 10 panchas of the Oram Panchayat had given notice to the Prescribed Authority fbr tabling fhe no confidence motion against the petitioner and thereafter the Prescribed Aufhonty appointed Presiding Ofiicer and issued notice to fhe members of the Panchayat in accordance with law. 'This nouce was Issuedon 03-08-2006 for the meeting dated 18-08-2006, as per the requirement of Section 21 of the Acimniyam and accorctingly me petition was ctismissed. w s^ Tjirl';;-ia- 4. Leamed eounsel for tfae petitioner subiiiits that tlie meeting of the Panchayat to consider fhe no conJidence motioa was illegal. The sarae was convened in confiTavention ot Sub-riile (3) ot Kule 3 ot ttie cnnatusgarn PancUavat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up- Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat T'afha Zila Pancliayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'tthe Riiles"). There is no evidence to show fhat notice was despatched before seven days. It is further m'gued fhat the notice did not mention ttie specific charges against tfae petitioner and the petitioner was not even afforded an opportunitv to make her submission in fhe meetuig. Pla.cing reUance upon the Judgment in the matter ot Somvati Soni Vs. Gram PanGhayat, Padwar & others, reported in 2000 ('l'l M.P.L.J. 173, it is ai-gued that Sub- rule (3| ofRule 3 offhe Rules coutemplates fhat the notice of the meeting shomd also specuy the piirpose ior wtueti Uie nieetuig is convened and it was uicuinbent upon tne Rrescribed Aufhority - Sub Divisional Offlcer to enclose the motion of no confidence along with fhe notice. l<'urmer relymg upon Itie Judgment in Uie matter ot Jugrat Singh Markam Vs. Bhannulal Maravi & ofhers^ reported in 2003 (4l M.P.L;J.378, it is submitted tha.t mougn ttie receipt ot nouce Detore seven clays is not necessary Gut ttie Frescribect Authority is requlrect to despatch fhe notice betbre seven clear days which is manaatory. 5. I have heard the leamed coiinsel for the petitioner. I have perused the impugned order as also the doeuments annexect with this petition. v 6. It is not in dispute tfaat the no eonfidence motion against the petitioner was passed wifh tlie requisite majonty as per Hecuon ^l 01 Uie Acuuruyam.. 'l'tie oruy obiection of the petitioner agamst passuig of such resolution is fhat the notice of the no coufidence motion was not despatched before seven clear days irom. fhe date of Dieetuig and the same is in violation of the mandatory provisions ofsub-rule (3) ofRule 3 ofthe Rules. So far as the other ground i.e the notice did not iriention fhe purpose tor wmcn me nieetmg was convenecl is y concemect, a bare perusal ot tfie notice ot Annexure-P/3 goes to stiow ttiat respondent No.3—Prescribed Aufhority vide memo dated 03-08-2006 issued to tlie members of the Gram. Panchayat had mformed fhat fhe meettng offhe Qram Panchayat shall be convened at 1.00 p.m. on 18- 08-2006 in Gram Panchayat Bhawan Nevdha for consideruig me no contictence motion agatnst tfae Sarpanch. The ofher objection fhat fhe petitioner was not attbrded an opportunity to put up her vlew point in the meeting is concemed, fhe above objection is not made out in view of the resolution of AnnexuTe P/2 wherein it is mentioned ttiat the petitioner participated in the meeting and deniedfhe allegationsleveUedagainsther. 7. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules is quoted below : ''3(3| On receiving fhe notice under sub-rule (1) fhe prescribed aufhority shall satisfy himself about the adHiissibility offhe notice wifh reference +^ C'ia-->+^-^^ 01 ^QV OQ/Q^ ct-!^^ f3<^f^\ ^^ +T^!a --.cs<?o. -motr A J- \^}y AO^O^ CU.AU. Ot^^OJIy txo tlJLC ^cxoc; jLU.cxy be. On being thus satisfted he shau fix the date, umc siici pis.cc lor uic niccuiig 01 LUC ursin Panchavat, Janpad Panchayat or Zua Panchavat, as tll.C' ^CtS?^; iay be, 'vvhich shall not be m.ore fhan fifteen days from uie date of receipt of fhe said notice. The notice of such nieetiag specif^Tng the date, time and place thereof shaU be caused to be dcspatchcd by hiui fhrough thc Sccrctary of thc Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of fhe Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every mem&er ot ttie l-'ancnayat concemea seven days before the meeting." 8. In the matter of Jugrai Singh Markam (Supra.) while considering Rule 3(3) of fhe Rules it has been held fhat word •'despatched" used in mis rule is analogous to fhe word "issued" and thus issuance or despatch of the notice is sraticient anct receipt ot tfae notice betore seven ctays is not necessary. 9. In fhe matter of Mahesh Prasad Chaudhari vs. StateofM.P. & omere, reported tn 1997 (2) JLJ 397, whUe deaJing wifh non-compliance of Rule 3(3) of the Rules, it nas been tield tbat wnere ttie petitioner participated ia a nieeung ot no conflclence motion the petitioner is not entitled to raise such an objection after passing of fhe no confidence raotion. 6 10. A F'ull Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Uie matter ot Bnultn Uewangan Vs. ytate ot M,JJ. others, reported in 2001 (2) M.P.L.J. 372 approving the aforesaid view of the leaniedSinRle Judge has held thus: iffT^t vs\. The general I'ule is ttiat non-com.plianee ot mandatory requireaent results in nuUification of the Act. T'here are, however, several eXceptions to fhe sainc* It ccrtsin rcc|uiTcnicnts or condltious drc provided by statute in fhe interest of a particular ^/ersou; t-nc /rcc[uii.erLieuT.s GF CQi.i.G.iuQnS; mandatory, m.ay be waived by him if no public interest are involved arid in such a case the act done ctv/L u.v-'llC. wul be valld even if fhe reqtiireinents or conditions havc not bccn pcribmicd. 11. In Uie instant case, the petitioner atter reGelvlng ttie notice participated in fhe meeting offhe Gram Panchavat held for considering no eonfidence mption against her without raising any oblection wifh respect to defect in the notice and thereatter ttie resolution ol nooonlidence was passed with a majority of 11 votes. Sfae was afforded an opportunity to put up her view point tn the meetmg and Uiereatter ttie mouon was passecl. 'l'neretore, ttus uoiirt is of me considered opinion fliat no preiudice is eaused to the petitioner by fhe defect, tf any, m fhe despatch of fhe nouce. 12. Consequently, ttie petition is devoid of substance and tne saaie is UaDle tor aismissal ancl is accorcluigiy ctismissed. Sd/-. Dhirendra Mishra Judge %0 1 r^^onnft - !U-~j£fVV/\J