:<-b BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Inthe Matter ofW.P.No.'-' /-J-/2003 PETITIONER ^yb% .^.^s^ ^^- &»v:' RESPONDENTS Man Singh Sahu ,aged about 4 1 years S/o. Late SukMal Sahu, Sarpanch - Vil f lage Panehayat, Otebandh, R/o. ViU- Otebandh, Vikas Khand-Dhamda, Distt.-Durg(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Distnct CoUector, Distt. - Duig (C.G.) 3. ^^ub DivisionalOfficer Distt-Durg(C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dhamda,Distt. - Durg (C.G.) 5. Leldia Ram Verma (Panch) . Gram Paiicfeayat ,Vsfl- Otebandh, Vikas Khand-Dhamda, Distt; -Durg (C.G.) 6. Secretary, Gram Panchayat ,ViB- Otebandh, Vikas Khand-Dhamda, Distt. - Durg(C.G.) 7. DeputyDirectorPanchayat&FemilyWellfair department District Duig " PETTTION UNDERARTICLE 226/227T)F THECQNSTITUTION OF m- DIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITIN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CER- TIORAM OUO WARRANTO. The petitioner respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER :. The details of the petioaer funus&ed in the cause tifle.. ^.r't^^-^.,-^ T XE-HC-22: 3^!BTO ^sesi^s. ^w^ «%^ ttlNCttSltW^ 'iojL^. ^l) <S^ »—"——""—-'^' Shri Arun Kochap.counsel 'wfefct wteB^ Es*d <6Kgt< '^2^EEE3^% For the petitioner. this wri*-n<Ktitipn filest-toder Art-icles 226/227 ofthe Constitution V^J-fesU^ of India, the petitioneF challeng^dthe show couse notice dated 5-9-2003 passed by the respondent No.3 ii(Pimchayat Case No. 1250/Pan./02, arisir^ out of the order dated S-9-2003.1 The petitioner's petition {s thot he is challenging the show cause notice doted 5-9-2(X)3 issued |y the respondent No.3 and rQising the questions of law as to whether-l^spondent No.3 ond Panchayat proceeding were correct in issuirg show cai^e notice of no confidtence motion ogainst the petitioner. iAccording to Seet-ion 21(lj of the Panchayat Act for no confidence motion there shall be rtteeting h^d after 15 day's from the date of notice, but date of notiee of the noconyidence motion issued^on 5-9-2003 passed by respondent No.3 and date O'| no confidence ineetjng is on 16-9-2003 itt- is a cl»>rviolation of Sectiori 21(3) of |of Rule 3(3) of the Pancha/at Rules, 1994, for no confidence niotion, notice |rill be servedWthin 7 ddys from the date of issuin9 order of n6 eonfide |e meeting. Respondent No.5 complained before the responderrf No.3 on 5|9-2003 and an order has been passed for no confidence motion proceedit^l under Section 21 6f the Pflnchayat Rqj Adhiniyom cgainst thepetitionepin 5-9-2003 without giving opportunity for within 15 daysinot;after t5 ddys; the Panchoyat Rey Adhiniyam.' According to the provision; F XI-BC-22 . ^Ll^ a^B^ ^TtPfr<»^^E i»PI^^11S^ -s- no contidence motion ex-porre ordep The order pcssed by the respondent ori the grounds mentioned in the writ The respondent No.'S without cc|i< allowed the complaintfiled bythe resp<|ii without ('ecording the evidence of peti1 by the complainant against the petitio|e noticeunder Section 21 of Chhatti^arll P I have heard the learned counsel The learned counsel'fbrthe peti 3 of ©ramPanchoyat Ke Sarpmeh......Av^l has been signed b/ the Secretury anc( sign show-cause notice. He further s^ (f(S passed by the respondent No.3. N{).3 is bad, contrary to law and illegal peg'ition. ccjiductjrg the preliminary enquiry had resp<|idents 5 and 6. The respondent No.3 1|oner had altoiived the comptaint fjled ir and ordered to issue show cause f Chhatti^arll PanchoyatR<y Adhiniyam. rnod^ a complaint against the Secreto|y mentaep malafide actionon behalf if the Secretl Rule-3 envistges that any move a motion of rw corrfidence agajn^' 6rvm Panchayat shall give a notice th^ the form appended to these rules. member the motion may be moved by, Sub-rule (2) of rule (3) prescrit|es receiving the notice under sub-rute .ar6? ^jtifete3^Jf^^'^^^~^^3^ ^dtpgndtti.c iforthepetitioner. ; i|ioner submitted that as per the rule Av^hwas Prastw) Niyam, 1994, anotice the Secretary is not autiiorized to |bmitted that the petitioner atready f, Annexure-P/2, therefore, this is lry- of @ram Panchayat, desiring to •the Sorpanch or Up-Sarpanch of a sreof to the prescribed authority in notice is given by more than one bf them signrg the notice. thaf the prescribed authority, on |1) shall sign ttiepeon a cert'ifi^ite Iffthe m ^•Ui r~ XI-HC-22 s-ait ••wwa't, »ai»»%,.. *lt*ICT< S6*Uc|> "~^E^ 298 SS^WS R'^'d-^S^ SfrHECft <tE^CT stating the date on whidi hour and at w and shallacknowledge itsreceipt. Sub-rule(3) of rule 3 further td under sA-rule (1) the prescribed auth admissibility of the notice. On beirg time and place for the meetingof the more than fifteen days from the date notice of such meeting specifying the caused to be despatched by him thi Panchayat to every member' of the Pon fhemeetirg. Therefore, in view of the provt Secretary is entitled to sign the re authqrity <md it atso tays down Ihot thi and placeof the meeting and itshould n^t bewithin 15 days. A perusalof the notice Annexj 5-9-2003 and meeting for no confidel^e 2003,ther'efore,itiswithin 15 days. place hasbeen fixed as the premises .ofl it satisfies all the requirements as per| Secretary has signed on behalf of thj tfet<tf<*t<®H*tt*lre^^ '^E^'^^Rt ^a^mss^t |iich thetwtice has been given td him t^ dowh that on peceiYing the notice ^r-ity shalt satisfy himSelf about the +us satisfied, he shall fix •tiie date, 6ram Panchdyat which shall not be |of receipt'of the ^aiclnotice. The (jate, time and place thereof shall be (ough the Secretary of the Sran thayat concerned sever) doys before |ions of sub-rule (3) of ryle 3 the (tice on behalf of the prescribed i( rwtice must contain the dote, time be loterthan 15 days but itshould | -P/lshows that it was issued on motion has been fjxed -for 16-9- The time is fixed at tl a.m. and the ifirom Panchayat building, therefor-e, Irule 3 of the Niyam, 1994 and the ®prescpibed authority as perthe ET»li^ XI-H&22 ; w^^ss^^^^i&^^ssi^s^sss^ SilSwiB<<^N^RS uw OT^3?r ^!g?R HttCTISKNra) •w, 200 Rl<»<t»l' ai^rqn f<,ii_qa <ni^ ^S^i •y^d ^ •te B^ 3iR^?^ytiEi< tt^ ^ provisioris<»frule3,1lierefore,Idoncttfind my illegalttyorinfirmity in the said show CWJSK notiee. There is no substance in this dismissedand it isdismissed. '(iWld'iil'l t|14<"B4 ft^t <(«itsn ^diPdHan^r iietition and the same is liable to be Sdf- _ L.C. Bhadoo Judge t^'^^ Kc.