ar HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No.1162 OF 2009 PETITIONER Vs RESPONDENTS Naresh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Tejram Sahu, aged about 40 years, 5arpanch of Gram Panchayat Belar, R/o Village and Post Belar, Via-Fingeshwap, District Raipur (CG) 6ari'yaband, iSariyaband, Fingeshwar. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throu9h: The Secretary, bepartment of Panchayat, &.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Additional Collector, District Raipur (C.6.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer District Raipur (C.6.) 4. Additional Tehsildar, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.6.) 5. The Secretary, (Sram Panchayat Belar, Vikas-khand Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, Districf Raipur (C6) 6. MotilalRotre, Upsarpanch. 7. Neelkanth Sahu. Panch 8, Dushyant Ram, Panch. 9. Hemuram Sahu, Panch. 10.5adhuram 5ahu, Panch. 11.Tamal Ram Sahu, Panch. 12.Amar Singh Sa'nu, Panch. IS.Rup Ram, Panch. 14.Tirath Ram Sahu, Panch. IS.Sewak Ram Sahu, Panch. No. 6 to 15 all Panch, 6ram Panchayat Belar, Vikas Khand Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, Distri.ct Raipur (C6) Present; Mr. R. Pradhan, Advocate Mr. Arun Sao, 6overnment Advocate Mr. R. Mukherjee, Advocate None for respondents No.6 to 15 For the petitioner. For the Stdte. For respondent No.5. O R D ER (Passed on Z5th September, 2009) Dhirendra M(shra^_J 1. _Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner is elected Sarpanch of 6ram Panchayat Belha, Block Fingeshwar, District Raipur. Up-Sarpanch & 9 Panchas of the said Gram Panchayat submitted notice in a prescribed »1lN.l!!L!N(''ll!!:':! Page 2 of 4 proforma on 1'4.2.2008 before the Prescribed Authority-Sub Divisional Officer, fiariyabandh for bringing no confidence motion (for short 'motion') against the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority after registering the application called for report from the Chief Executive Officer after conducting enquiry. Vide order dated 24.3.2008, he appointed Additional Tehsildar as the Pr-escribed Officer to conduct the meeting of (5ram Panchayat for considering motion. The Prescribed Officer fixed the date of meeting as 4.4.2008 and directed the Chief Executive Officer to dispatch notice of the meeting to the members. Notices of meeting we.re. served upon the members, however, the petitioner was served by affixing the sameon his gate in the presence of witnesses and his father. 3. Out of 18 members of the Sram Panchayat, 17 participated in the meeting. The petitioner remained absent. Out of 17 members, 15 voted in favour of motion and two voted against. At the end of meeting the Presiding Officer declared that resolution of motion has been.passed by requisite majority. Resolution bears signature of all the members of the (Sram Panchayat present in the meeting. 4. The petitioner filed reference under Section 21 (4) of the Panchayat Raj Avam 6ram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') before the Coilector against the motion passed by the Panchayat and the same has also been dismissed vide impugned ordep. 5. The petitioner- by the instant petition has questioneo the validity of the order passed by the Collector rejecting reference and confirming the motion passed by the panchayat on the ground that the meeting was not convened within a period of 15 days from'the date of notice for bringing motion and the petitioner- was deprived of his right to speak and M'r' F ;' "";?>' s£i.t-pEeSfS^^^s-S-;: ,,<,s:.mte^,,, .^i»li». "%<. 'a&. Page 3 of 4 participate in the proceeding of meeting as there was no proper service of notice to the petitioner. 6. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of C.6. Panchayat (6ram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat ke Pr-esident Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (for short 'Rules, 1994') read as under:- (3) On receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) the prescribed authorityshall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21 (3), 28 (3) and 35 (3), as the case fflay be. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the 6rarn Panchayat, Janapad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The. notice of such meeting specifying the date, tims and place thereof shal! be caused to be dispatched by him through the Secretary of the 6ram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janapad or Zila Panchayat, as The case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting." 7. Phrase "caused to be dispatched by him" occurr'ing in the above rule has been consistently interpreted that the requirement of law is of desptach of notice and not service on the members. (Somvati Soni Vs. Qram Panchayat Padwar reported in 2000 (1) MPLJ 173) <& Sharda Bai Vs. Stcte of M.P. reported in 1997 (2) MPLJ 291), In yiew of the above, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no proper service of notice and therefore, the petitioner could not participate in the proceeding is without any for'Ge. Page 4 of 4 8. So far as other argument that the meeting of panchayat was not held within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice is concerned, I am of the opinion that the Legislature has consciously provided that provision and cast a duty upon the Prescribed Officer to convene the meeTing within 15 days from the receipt of notice of motion. Where the Prescribed Officer fails to convene the meeting, as provided in the above rule, the members, who have tabled motion, have right to approach the High Court for its compliance. However, where the meeting was held beyond the peri.ad of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and resolution of motion was passed in the said meeting by the requisite majority, the will of the members in relation to motion cannot be defeated on account of inaction or delayed action of the Prescribed Authority. 9. In the result, the petition has no substance, the same deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stoge itself. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- DhirendraMistira Judge