A- F HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH Coram :': HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 17 of 2008 / i /- i / APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Smt. Urmila Jagat W/o. Mahendra Jagat, aged about 30 years, R/o Gram panchayat Jhalkhamariya, Block Mahasamund Tahsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) Versys 1. Cotlector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) fResDondlenffrespondent No.li 2. Sub-divisional Officer, Revenue, Mahasamund Tahsii & District Mahasamund (C.G.) fRespondent/resoondent Ho.2) 3. Nayab Tahsiidar, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.) ffiespondent/resoondent No.3) 4. Trilochan S/o Bhukhau, Panch, Up- Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jhatkhamariya, Distrlct Mahasamund(C.G.) fRessondent/atwellantt Writ ADpeat under Section 2(1 ) of the Ghhattisgarh Hiah court faDpea! to Division Bench) Act.2006 R/W Rule 157(10) of Chhattisaarh Hiah CourtRules, 2005 Present: Shri Manqj Paranjpe, leamed counsei for the appellant. Shri A.S. Gaharwar; learned Additional Actvocate General for the State / respondents No. 1,2 & 3. '<i>. 0? Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for respondent No4. JUDGMENT (18th IWarch, 2008) e foilowina iudgment of the Court was passed by 3. fol Heard learned counsel forthe parties on admission. 2. Appellant - Smt. Urmila Jagat, who was respondent No.4 in the writ petition hss filed this writ appeal against the order 01-02-2008 passed inW.P.(C) No. 518/2008. Respondent No.4 - Trilochan filed the writ oetition for the reliefs:- "(i) That this Hon'ble Court kindiy be pleased to pursue the entire records pertaining to Revenue Case No. 03/A-89/year 07-08 and Impugned order dated 20-12-2007 Annexure P-1 passed by the respondent no.1. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to atiow the present Writ Petition further by passing order for Settina-aside the Impugned- order dated 20/12/2007 Annexure P-1 passed by the respondent No.1 in Case No. Revenue Case No. 03/A-89/year-07-08. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to upheld the proceeding dated 13/11/2007 about the 'No Confidence Motion' against the respondent no. 04, Smt. Urimilia Jagat, Sarpanch to be valid & correct as per the Section-21 of Adhinlyum, 1993 & guidelines described under principle of La in "Tri-Stri Panchayat Raj" pubiished by the Panchayat & ••i"tv'^. /»C.-4"^ ^. Gramin Vikas Viubhag in respect with the subject of 'No Confidence Motion' discussed at Chapter- 19. (iv) And further, pass an appropriate order in favor of the petitioner(s) or any other retief as may deemed fit necessary & proper -by this Hon'ble Court, in vievi/ to the above facts & the circumstances of the case also be given to the Petitioners including the cost ofthe Petitlon." 4. The writ petitioner, thus, v/as seeking quashing of the order Co! ted 20-12-2007, Mahasamund. 5. Appellant - Smt. Urmila Jagat was elected as Sarpanch o Gram Panchayat, Jhalkhamariva in the year 2005. Some of th< panchas of the said Gram Panchayat, being dissatisfied with th< appeilant, moved a 'Motion of No-con the meeting of the Gram Panchayat 1 12 panchas present in the meeting \ favour ofthe 'Motion of No-confidence'. The Prescribed a.qainst ner. In 13-11-2007 all the i.e. Sub-Divisionai Officer, Mahasamund, therefore, vide order dated 13-11 -2007, directed the appeliant to vacate the office of Sarpanch as the 'Motion of No-confidence' aaainst her was ised bythe requisite majority. 6. ~ The appeilant being aggrieved by the above proceedings referred the dispute to the Coliector, Mahasamund under Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The Collector, Mahasamund held that the 'Motion of No-confidence' was passed by only 12 panchas, which number srd vvas not more than 2/3'° of 17, the total number of panchas of the Gram. Panchavat. The Collector, Mahasamund. therefore, passed the orderdated 20-12-2007 setting asidethe proceedings of the Gram Panchayat and the order of the Sub-Divisionai Officer relating to the 'Motion of No-confidence' against the appellant. This order dated 20-1 2-2007, passed by the Coilector, Mahasamund, was impugned in the writ petition. 7. Learned Single Judge on a thorough consjderation of the rivai pieadings of the parties and the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swar&i Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act') held that as 2/3rd of 17 comes to 1 1.33 and as many as 12 panchas voted in favour of the 'IVlotion of No-confidence', both the requirements of Sectlon 21 of the Act that the 'Motion of No-confidence' should be passed by not less than 3/4 of the panchas presenf and voting and more than 2/.3''a of the panchas in the Gram Panchayat for the time being, were fulfilled. Learned Single Judge, therefore, set aside the order dated 20-12-2007, passed by the Collector, Mahasamund and aliowed the writ petition. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently arguea' that the tearned Single Judge has erred in holdinajhat both the requirements of Section 21 of the Act were fuffiiied in the case as only 12 panchas voted in favour of the 'lViotion of No-confidence' against the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that as 2/3m of 17 when rounded off comes to 12, the second requirement of Section 21 of the Act that the B! J :s&sc^ys:" 'Motlon of No-confidence' shouid be passed by more than 2/3a of the number of the panchas of the Gram Panchayat, cannot be said to have been fulfiiled in the present ease. 9. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and Shri J.A.''Lohani, learned counsel for respondent No.4, on the other hand, supported the 'mpugned order and contended that as 2/3 of 17 comes to 11.33 i.e. iess than 11 .5 for the purpose of rounding of 2/3ra would be 11 and not 1 2, and therefore, both the requirements of Section 21 of the Act are futfilled in the present case. 10. Section 21 ofthe Act reads as foliows: " 21. No-confidence motion aaainst Sarpanch (1)0n a motion of no-confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three fourth of the panchas presentand voting and such majority is more than two t'nird of the total number of panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat tor the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is oassed, shall cease to hold office (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up- Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no-confidence is discussect against him. Such meeting shall be convened in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint. The 6 .-..yi^—^'r;,^ :cS\ 'A. K? Ki ^^ ^'"'- ^. Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at or otherwise to take part in, the proceeding of the meeting. $) No-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of - c^ (i) one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or UD-Sarpanch enter their respective (ii) Six month preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires; (lii) one year from the date on which prevlous motion of no-confidence was rejected. (4) If the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, desires to challencse fhe vaiiditv of the motion carried out under sub-section (1), he shali, within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Cotlector who shali decide it, as far as possibie, within thirty days from the date on which it was received by him, and hls decision shall be ftnal." 11. Admittedlv, there were 17 oanchas in the Gram Panchavat of Jhalkhamariya; on 13-11-2007 when the 'Motion of No-confidence' against the appellant was put to vote as many as 12 panchas were present and participated in the meeting; and a! the 12 panchas present in the meeting voted in favour of the 'Motion of No-confidence' against the appellant. So far as the first requirement under Section 21 of the Act that t'ne 'Motion of No-confidence' should be passed by not less than 3/4'" of the .8 majority present and voting in the meeting was fuifiiied, is not in dispute in the present case. 12. The only controversy in the present case is as to whether the second requirement of Section 21 of the Act that the 'Mofion of No-confidence' should be passed by the majority of more than 2/3 of the total number of panchas of the Gram Panchayat is fulnlled ornot. 13. Going by a simple mathemstica! catoutation, 2/3 of 17 comes to 11.33. Sincethe 'Motion of No-confidence' against the appeliant was passed by the majority of as many as 12 panchas and the number of 12 beina more than the number of 11.33, the second requirement of Section 21 of the Act, in our opinion, is aiso fulfilled. 14. We are fortified In our above view by the Divlsion Bench decision of the Madhva Pradesh Hiah Court in the case of Shankarfal Patidar vs. State of M.P. ancf otters, reported in 197S M.P.L.J. -116, wherein it was observed in paragraph 4 as " The first argument of Shri Garg has no merit and he has very fairly pointed out to us that the point is conciuded against him by a decision of this Court in Govindkumar v. Gram Panchayat, Pipalgone and other. No TurSher argument on this point being advanced by Shri Garg, it is not necessary for us to deal with the same at any iength. We woutd, how/ever, add only thls much that the expression "by a resoiution passed by a majority of more than one half of the total number £ WSfea!SSM^^ .-^^^r^-v> of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being ......" occumng in sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 leaves no doubt that the actuai number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat when the resoiution is passed provides the basis for determlning majority. In the present case admittediv the,_ actyaj strength_of _Panchas constitutina the Gram Panchavat on 4-6-1973 when the resoiution was passed was onlv fifteerL This beina so, the resoiution passed bv eiaht ot' them was necessariiv oassed bv a majoritv of more than one haif of ihe total number of Panchas constitutina the Gram PanchayaLat that time. This araument is, therefore. reiected," 15. Thus, we have no hesitation in hoiding that the "fvlotlon of No-confidence' against the appellant passed by 12 out of 17 panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat meets both the requirements of Section 21 of the Act and the 'Motion of No-confidence' against the appellant - Sarpanch was passed by the requisite majority as contemplated by Section 21 of the Act. 16. VVe, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ appeal. 17. The writ appeal, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summarily. ~~~~—-._ Sd/- Chief Justice suni'^s^ suaou