,x‘ HIGH COL-JRT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR w A Wrlt Petmon (C) No. 3476 of 2007 Petitioner Smt. Malti Verma, wife of Shri Khemraj Verma, aged about 33 years, Ex. President, Janpad Panchayat Bhathapara, resident of Bhathapara, District Raipur (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Panchayat, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 2) Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 3) Collector, Panchayat Branch, Raipur, District Raipur(CG). 4) Prescribed Officer/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bhathapara, District Raipur (CG). 5) Santosh Verma. 1) Respondents E: A ‘ 3 6) Sanjay Chaturvedani. 7) Smt. Chanchal Bai Agrawal. 8) Smt. Digeshwari Verma. Smt. Rekha Verma. 10) Shri Tek Singh .Dhruv. Shri Naresh Dhruv. 12) Smt. Chandrika Bai. 13) Shri Medan Lal Manhare. 14) Smt. Shahnaz Akhtar. 15) Shri Ram Bagas Dhruv. 16) Smt. Bindeshwarl Verma. 17) Shri Chandrapal Dhruv. Shri Siyaram Chakradhari. 19) Smt. Kirti Bijora. 20) Smt. Rajkumarl Dhruv. 21) Shri Shakeel Khan. 22) Shri Nakrayan Lal Dhruv. 23) Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma. rRespondents No. 2 to 23 are members of Vikas Khand, Bhathapara, District Raipur ((CG), 11) 18) \ @5 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. P.K. Tuisiyan, Advocate appears on behaif of Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer forthe respondents No. 1 to 4/State. None appears for the respondents No. 5 to 23. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 7‘“ day of November, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge legality and validity of the order dated 30-5—2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in Case No. 117/A-89/06-O7, whereby the vote of ‘no confidence motion‘ dated 22-3-2007 (Annexure P/4) was held as legal. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is an elected President of Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, District Raipur. The said Janpad Panchayat was comprised of 20 members and out of 20 members, 18 members moved an application on 8-3~2007 (Annexure P/2) before the Collector against the petitioner, the then President of Janpad Panchayat. Having considered the application for ‘no confidence motion’, Shri P. Netam, Sub Divisional Officer, Bhatapara, was appointed as Presiding Officer by order dated 9- 3-2007 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Collector, in exercise of power under Section 28 (2) of the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, “the Adhiniyam 1993”). Having given prescribed notice to all the members, meeting of ‘no confidence motion’ was convened on 22-3-2007. All 20 members were present and out of 20 members present 15 members voted in favour of ‘no confidence motion’ and 5 members opposed ’no confidence motion’. Accordingly, Sub- Divisional Officer, Bhatapara, declared that ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner has been carried out on the same day i.e., 22-3—2007 (Annexure P/4). Without making any statement with regard to the fact asto which mark was prescribed for voting in favour of the ‘no confidence motion’ and which mark was prescribed for voting against ‘no confidence motion, it is submitted by learned ’ seven days before as require as all other members have no complaint about the d receipt that they have not received notice in advance. The contention of Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the members were confused, mis- guided and they have not raised any voice when ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out. Only they have filed affidavits before the Director, Panchayat that seems to be after-thought. 7) Rule 5 of the Niyam, 1994 dealing with conduct of meeting provides that the member, who wants to vote in favour of the motion shall affix the symbol (\l) and the member, who wants to vote against the motion shall affix the symbol ‘X’. After the member has recorded his vote he shall fold he ballot paper to maintain secrecy and put it in the ballot box kept on the table of the Presiding Officer. 8) On perusal of the Rule 5 along with other provisions of Niyam, 1994, it appears that the procedure for ‘no confidence motion’ has been prescribed in order to have uniformity, but the same cannot be held as mandatory. If the Presiding Officer has adVIsed the voters othervwse and the voters have affixed the mark according to the adVIce of the Presiding Officer the whole process cannot be declared as null and void. 9) Admittedly, the members affixing ‘X’ mark in favour of ‘no confidence motion’ were 15 and the members affixing (Y) mark against ‘no confidence motion’ were 5. Thus, the conduct of the proceedings cannot be held as illegal. The members as well as the petitioner have not raised any voice during the conduct of the proceedings or at the conclusion of the proceedings. The affidavits filed subsequently in a situation like this, cannot be held as reliable as with the passage of time the members may change their minds after 'no confidence motion’ was carried out. 10) lt 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 l on the basis of procedufal defect as observed in the mater of Ghanshyam Yadav vs. Rameshwar Sahu and others1. 11) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 30-5- 2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, is unexceptionabie and warrants no interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl- 1 : Satish K.Agnthotri Judge Raju h‘ \ 12007 (1) MPHT 86 (CG)