HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO. 6447 OF 2008 PETITIONER k4 y~ Uma Shankar Nirala, S/o Shri Sant Ram, aged about 36 years, Sapranch, Gram Panchayat Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat Avam Gramin Vikas Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). The Additiona’l'Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). / The Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (CG). The Presiding Officer, H.K. Jaiswai, Nayab Tahsildar, Bhatgaon, Distt. Raipur (CG). Siya Ram, S/o Kartik Ram, aged about 37 years, Up—Sarpanch, Bhiiaigarh. Peer Khan, S/o Amir Khan. Harmendar Singh, S/o Tejaswi Pratap Singh. Amrika Bai, W/o Shyam Lai Gorelal, S/o Kartik Ram Satnami Anup Bai, W/.o Tika Ram Jaiswal Suman Devi, W/o Sudesh Agrawai Bhoj Ram, S/o Mudiya Kalar Begi Bai, W/o Maya Ram Urmila, W/o Baharta Sahu Shivial, S/o Ram Dayai Sahu Ramkumar, S/o Shatrughan Dewangan Bodhin, W/o Puni Ram Sarthi Gomthi, W/o Radheshyam Shrivas Naresh Kumar, S/o lshwari Dewangan RESPONDENTS 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Koshlesh Dubey;S/o Chintamani Dubey 21. Balram, S/o Reshamlal Dewangan 22. lshwar Dewangan, Slo Ramcharan Dewangan 23. Chandra Prakash, S/o Achchhay Ram 24. Rangi Lal Yadav, S/o Lachchhi Ram Respondents 5 to 24 are R/o village Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (CG). (Writ petition underAiticle 227 of the Constitution of lndia Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri H.P. Agrawal, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 19“ day of November, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 30-9-2008 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar, Raipur, in appeal No.24-A/89/07-08, whereby the vote of ‘no confidence motion’ dated 29-7-2008 was held as legal. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of village Bilaigarh. The respondents No.6 to 19 and 23 & 24, who are the Panchas, made an application dated 16-7-2008 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh, for initiating ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner. The ‘no confidence motion‘ was held on 29-7—2008 after having complied with the necessary requirements before conducting the meeting for ‘no confidence motion’. 3) v According to the petitioner, notice was not served upon the petitioner as well as onother three Panchas. ln the service report, the Kotwar as well , as the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat made an endorsement to the effect that the petitioner refused to accept the notice; therefore, the same has been pasted. The ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out by 17 votes in favour of the ‘no confidence motion’ and 4 votes against the ‘no confidence motion‘. There were total 21 members present. ln the meeting the petitioner raised an objection with regard to inclusion of 2 votes in favour of the ‘no confidence motion’, which according to the petitioner was ) ’;/’w invalid. The Presiding Officer having examined the votes in presence of all the members rejected the appiication of the petitioner. 4) Being aggrieved, a reference under Section 21 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “the Adhiniyam") was made by the petitioner to the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector having observed that the ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out in accordance with the law and, as such, the same was just & proper, dismissed the reference by order dated 30-9—2008 (Annexure-P/_1). Thus, this petition. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s application for recounting of votes was contrary to rules as once application is made, the Presiding Officer is under an obligation to recount all the votes afresh. Secondly, once notice was refused by the petitioner the same ought not to have been pasted on the wall of the residence of the petitioner. 6) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order. 7) l heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 8) It is apparent that the case of the petitioner is not that the provisions of initiation of ‘no confidence motion’, issue and service of notice on the members of Gram Panchayat were not complied with. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that once application for recounting of votes has been made by the petitioner, the Presiding Officer has no choice, but to conduct recounting, is unsustainable. Before directing recounting of votes the Presiding Ofncer must satisfy himself as to whether recounting was necessary or not. It was observed that the votes were counted in presence of all the members and, as such, there was no invalidity in two votes and accordingly recounting was not ordered. The Additional Collector in reference has considered all the facts in detail and came to the conclusion that the counting was done in presence of all the members openly, therefore, it was not necessary to order recounting and secondly the mode of service of notice will 'not vitiate the ‘no confidence motion’ proceedings, as admittedly the petitioner has declined to accept the notice subsequently pasting of notice on the wall of the residence of the wkg petitioner is of no relevance. Other members of the Panchayat have no grievance about the service of notice. The petitioner has faiied to prove his case. It is well settled principle of law that if any resolution is passed by overwhelming majority, ‘no confidence motion’ cannot be declared as null and void on the basis of procedural defect, as observed in the matter of Ghanshyam Yadav vs. Rameshwar Sahu and others1. 9) This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case 10) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 30-9-2008 (Annexure~P/1), passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda The Bazar, Raipur, is unexceptionable and warrants no interference. petition is accordingly dismissed. l ./' “mom 3s¢ge \ 11) Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of.//’ Sdl— :Sa‘Eh Gowri 1 2007 (1) MPHT 86 (CG)