K HK3H COURTOF CMI^IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Peti'tion (c) No. 5494 of 2006 Petitjoner Versus Respondents :1. s. 10. 11 12. 13. 4A !-r. 15. 16. 17. Smt. Uma Hemant Kumar (Sarpanch) Gram Panehayat Khisora W/o. Hemant Kumar, aged about 27 years, R/o. Viilage: Khisora, Block: Baloda, Tehsi! : Janjgir, Distt: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) State ot cnnattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) S.D.O. Revenue and Prescribed Authority Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) The Colllector, Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Khemlai S/o. Santram (Panch) Caste: Satnami, Smt. Champa Bai (Panch) W/o. Shri Daras Ram, Caste : Satnami, Smt. Budhwara Bai (Panch) W/o. Shri Chhat Ram, Caste: Satnami, Smt. Janki Bai (Panch) W/o. Shiv Shankar, Caste : Yadav, Smt. Mangtin Bai (Panch) W./o. Shri Anjor Sai, r^-i;aste: Satnami, Smt. Rajin Bai (Panch) W/o. Shri Narendra, Caste: Satnami, Smt. Umenda Bai (Panch) W/'o. Shri Santram, Caste : Satnami, Smt. Khik Eai (Panch) . W/o. Shri Santram, Caste: Satnami, Smt. Premiai Sahu i/Up Sarpanch) S/o. Shri Budhuram Sahu Caste : Sahu Shri Yadram (Panch) S/o. Phirat Ram Yadav, Caste: Yadav, Shri Amarnath S-ahu (Panch) S/o. Shri Mohanlal Sahu, Caste: Teli Shri Mahesh Ram (Panch) S/o. Duka!u Caste: satnami Shri Ganpat Singh (Panch) S/o. Late Pjlababoo, Caste : Kanwar, Shri Govind Yadav (Panch) S/o. Shri Kashiram Yadav, Caste: Yadav ^ 1§. Shri Harish Chandra (Panch) S/o. Sobharam SaSnami, Caste: Satnami, Respondent No. 4 to 18 are Resident of VilSage ; Khisora, Biock : Baloda, Tehsil : Janjgir, Distt: Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 19. Shri Mitresh Sharma, S/o. Chhedilal Sharma, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Khisora Block : Baioda, Dlstt : Janjglr - Champa (C.G.5 20. Shri Anuj Kumar Patel, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ba!oda, Distt: Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 21. Shri F. Kerketta,' Addi. Tahsiidar Janjgir, (Returning Officer) Tehsii: Janjgir, Distt: Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Hon'ble Justice Shri Satish K. Aanihotri Present: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate for the pet'tioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3/State Ms. Deepaii Pandey, Advocate for the respondents No. 4 to 17 ORDER (Passed on this 11 th day of April, 2007) By this petition, filed under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 26.9.2006 (P/1), passed by the Collector.Janjgir Champa /respondent No. 3, wherein it has been heid that 'No Confldence Motion', held on 6.3.2006 (P/2), against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Khisora, Tahsi! Janjgir Champa vi/as 'camedouf. The first contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitloner is that Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Niyam, 1994') has not been complied with in its ietter and sprit. The second contention of iearned cpunsel appearing for the petitioner that if, one member present is declared as invalid, the members constituting the meeting may not be fevo third of the totai members of the said Panchayat. 3. With regard to first contentjon of iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is clear from reading of the Ruie 5 of the Niyam, 1994 that requirement of signatures of al! the members present before movjng 'No Confidence Motion', is a condition precedent for conduct of the meeting. On perusal of the proceeding of 'No Confidence Motion' meeting dated 6.3.2006, it appears that ali 16 members v/ere present and had put thelr signatures. Thereafier, after completion of the meeting when 'No Confidence Motion' was declared as 'carried ouf, oniy 13 members were signed and the requirement of the provisions of the Rule 5 of the Niyam, 1994 has been complied with in its ietter and spirit. The members present, had put their signatures in the minutes of the meeting before casting their votes. Thus, the first contention is rejected. 4. With regard to second contention, admittediy, totai numbers of the panchas are21 and two third members as required under Section 21 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hersinafter rsferrsd to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') wouid bs 14 and total numbsr of the msmbers pressnt in the yoting were 16. The second requirement that motion of no confidence is to be passed by a majority of not less than three fourth of the panchas present and voting. Out of 1S members present and voting, three fourth wouid be 12. 15 mernbers have cast their votes in Tavour of 'No Confidence Motion'. Thus, the Presiding Officer has rightiy dectared 'No Confidence Motion' was 'camed ouf. —— 3§pnf uioqiugv -yi qspBg -yps •S}S03 0} SS JSpJO Oj\j •pessiiusip AjBuipjoooe si uoiiitsd ^^ sill '9 •8ouejs^.'9}u! ou spsau pue ©jqeuoitdsoxaunsi £-ON lUspuodssj/edLUBijo jiS.fuer 'jopeijoo sif} Aq pessed '(|.,y) 900Z'6"9Z Pa»Bp jspjo eq} 'BujoBsjoi ey} p m8.;A ui •g niqeg