ir c.(- i<t) IN THE HON'BLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. -1-7'^' ^ /2Q02 (S,B.) PETITIONER SMT. SAROJBAI RATHIYA, W/0. SHRI ISHWARPRASAD, SARPANCR,Gyi3"^M^ GRAM PANCHAYAT PAMGARH, TAH. KHARSIA, DISTT. RAIGARH VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^-1) A^^^^ ^^J^f- ^^yy ^.^S^ ^C 4i >^\«-"y' •••<7~ f~/- '^^••••" '^ 5) 6) "^ ..-^ .^ l< v!s-!: •a' !1 -/.;\"' /" -f 'l-tl'' ..-•/' 7) 8) ^! 10) 11] 12) efc' * \.,^c^? STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH : COLLECTOR RAIGARH ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, RAIGARH (CHHATTISGARH) SUB DF/ISIONAL OFFICER, KHARSIYA, DISTT. RAIGARH (CG) SHRI ATUL SHETE, NAIB TAHSILDAR, KHARSIA, DISTT. RAIGARH (CHHATTISGARH). SANTKUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAMDHAN, UP-SARPANCH. BINOD KUMAR, SON OF SHRI ANAND,PANCH GANESH, SON OF NOT KNOWN. SAHASRAM, SON OF NOT KNOWN, PANCH, SUKHRU SON OF BHOKLO, PANCH. DINDAYAL, SON OF SHRI MANGAL SINGH, PANCH, SMT. VRINDAWATI, WIFE OF SHRI CHECHHURAM, PANCH, SMT. HEERAMATI, WIFE OF SHRI ROHIT KUMAR, PANCH RUPNARAYAN, SON OF NOT KNOWN, PANCH. SAMARURAM, SON OF NOT KNOWN, PANCH. :tii?l Q' 15) 16) 17) KAUSHALYA WIFE SAMPAT, PANCH. PANCHMATI, WIFE OF SHRI AMARSINGH, PANCH, OF SHRI PREMKUMAR, SON OF SHRI GANGARAM, PANCH. FROM SL.NO. 5 TO 17 ARE R/0. AADPATHRA, TAH. KHARSIA, DISTT. RAIGARH (C^©.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OFTHE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. ,n"> II;' u^ :<"^: j M HIGH COURT OF CatHATnSQARH: BILASPUR W.P. N0.1748/2002 WRIT PBTITION ONDBR ARTICLB 326 I 227 OB" CON8TITUTI011 OP INDIA Petitioner: Respondent: Por pctitioncr: For iiespondents: 8mt. Sarojbai Rathiya Versus State oftadiatUaearh & On Shri P.K.C.Tiwan, Adv. Shri Ranbir Singh, GA for fhe Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. Date of Ordcr -07-^003 PRESENT: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.C.NAIK The petitioncr was dected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pamgarh Tah. Pandarya Distfc Raigarh. At a meetiag held on 04-2-2002 a motion of no confidencc' was pasaed against the petitfoner. This meeting was convcned by the Prescribed Authority on the basfe ofa requisition received firom a majonly of the Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat The Presidmg Officcr subinitted a report to the Prescribcd Authonty who tueld the 'motfon of no confidence' to have been passed ia accoidance with thc statutory piovisions. Ag®ricvcdthcrewith the petitioncr preferred aa appcal under Scction 91 of Paachayat Raj Adhiuyam, 1993 (hcreia referred to as tbe Adliinfyam), before the Additional CoHector, Raigarh, which was distnissed. Et:ll»l| Aggricved fhcrewifh fhc pctitioner has approached fhis Court for retief. 2. The contention of the learaed counsel for thc petitfoner is fhat siace noti.ee of tnecting was not senred scven days prior to fhe date of ineetmg wluch was to be heM. on 04-2-2002, but was served on 02-02-2002, fhe ineetmg could not be saad to have been validty convened and as such the 'no confidcnce niotion' fhat was passed was iUegal and could not be acted upon. It was also contended fhat as admittedty a reqiusition was submitted by sorae Panchas on 08-01-2002, fhe F'rescribed Aufhority was notjustified ia accepting a furfher reqiiisltion on 16-1-2002 and conveuing the meeting on fhat baste. At auy rate, it was submitted that fhe meeting having not tieen convened iu accordaace wifh the statutoiy provisrons was not a validty convcncd incctmg aad any decision takcn at fhat vaeetis% was iUegal and could not be acted upon. It was also subiiutted fhat fhe petitioner was not given a propcr opportunily to speak at fhe aieetii^; and llioi^h she had cast her vote ^aiast the 'inotion of no confidence' yet fhte was not recorded/reflected ia the record which indicates the bias on the part of fhe aufhorily agamst fhe petitioner. It was also contended fhat if fhe requisition dated 08-01-2002 was not in a proper fonaaat it ought to havc becn tejected aud thc fa.et fhat the aufhorities gave time to the Paachas to submit a Scesb requisition in a proper format gSso iadicates its bias agamst fhe petitfoticr. 3. Opposins fhe petition, it was subixutted by fhc leamed "State Counsel that itutifllfy some ineinbers of flie Grain Paachayat had subxnitted an. application for convetting the i!l(:;i'tis)i Sfs :'i" jlfjgjlS ineetmg to considcr the 'no coiifidence naotion' against fhc Sarpanch, but as fhe application was not ai a pioper fomaat, the Prescribcd Aufhority had asked fhexa to submit aa applicatk>n in fhe proper format They appeaxed on 16-1-2002 but, as aU the Panchas were not present, the Prescribcd Authorily ordercd thcir appearance on 21/01/2002. On that date, Up-satpanch aad aU fhe Paachas appeared before the Prescribed aufhority, who on finding fhe requisition to be in oider fixed the time and place of fhe laeeting and directed notice fhereof to be served to aU fhe Panchas. Accordiag to fhc State, tiss notice was duty served on aU the meinbers of fhe Grain Panchayat mchiding the petitioner. A mccting was hcM on 04.02.2002 as scheduled ia which 14 members mcluding the petitk>ner hfld participated. 11 meinbcrs cast their votes in favour of 'no confidence inotion' aad noae a^aiost. Since tnoic than 3/4th mcinbers of the Gram Panhchayat had supported fhe 'no confidcncc motion', it was deckued to have been vatidty passcd. It was also submittBd that fhe appeal undcr Section 91 of fhe Adhiayam was not mauitainable. The proper reinedy, it was subxnitted, was to raise a dispute imder Sectfon 21(4) of the Adhiniyain wifhin a period of seven days 6xmi fhe date on which thff inotion of no confidence was passed wluch hawing not beea done the petitioncr was not entifled to any reUef. 4. Coasidering fhe nature ofthe contentions Taised the Court had caBed upon fhe State counsel to produce fhe original record aad accordingty fhe origuial aecord was placed before fhe Court for its perusaL The record tadicates fhat on 08-01-2002 Up-sarpaach- Saat Kumar along with 11 Psmchas had [ 6i 4 submitted an application regaFclmg 'ao confidence inotton' against fhe Sarpanch. Since fhis requfeitioa was not ia the proper format fhey weie asked to do so and fhe matter was adjoumed to 16.1.2002. However, as on 16.1.2002 aU ffae Paachas were not present fhe mattcr was adjouraed to 21.01.2002 for appearance ofaU the signatorics. On fhat day (ie. 21.01.2002) Up-sarpanch Sant Kinnar along wifh fhe 11 Paachas who had also signcd fhe appUcation appeared before fhe Prescribed Aufhoiity who, on being satisficd that fh.e application was in order and i& accordancc with Rule 3 (3) ofthc Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Paachayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Jaapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Kc Presidcnt Tafha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam., 1994, hereinaBier refencd to as the "Niyam", registered fhe ptocccdit^s. Stui Atul Scfhc, Naib Tchsildar, Kharsiya was noixunated to bc fhe Presiding Officcr of fhe ineetuig which was to be convened on 14-2-2001 at 11.00 a.in. in Panchayat Bhawaa, Pamgarh. It was also ditected that notice of fhe Baeeting be served/given to aU the elected nneinbers iacludiag Sarpaneh. The record furtitier indicates that notices were prcpared and 11 copies fhcreofweie haaded over to fhe Gram Sahayak on 22.01.2002. There is also a docuraent which bears as au endorsemcnt-dated 24.1,2002 ofthc Qram Sahayak that nottes of ineetmg wcre sewcd on fhe petitioner-Sarpanch, Up- sarpanch and otber Iwelve Paachas. The said docunaent bears the ackacwtedgement of the petitioner, Up-sarpaach and other Paachas. (^ :,!tl!61tl ^ 5. Froni fhe record of proceeding which bcars fhc s%natuic of Naib Tahaildar, it is cfcar fhat a nicetmg was held on 04.02.2002 at 11.00a.m wherein aB fhe 14 inembers of fhe Gram Psmcbayat were picsent. At fbe said tneetmg Dindayal a Paach, had inoved fhe <no confidcnce inotion* and also spoke ia favour fhereof. The petitioner - Sarpaach was givea aa opportunity to express her views and thereafter baUot papers were handed over and all the incinbers were called one by one, aad each one of fhem. had cast his / her vote. On scrutmy 11 votes were fouxid in favour of fhe 'no confidence motion', none ^ainst and three votes were held to be invalid. Thus aU the 14 ballot papers were accounted for. A report of the proccednigs was sent to the Prescribed Authority which bcit^ satis&d fhat the no confidence motion had been passed iu accordance with fhc statutoiy provisions at a property convened inceting, heM it to have been validly passed. Accordingty iatimation was sent to the Cbief Executiye Officer under Section 38(l)(b) of the Adhiniyam. 6. The contention of the leamed counsel for thc petitioner is that siace 7 ctear days before notice of incetit^ was not served, fhe said ineeting was '"illegaF', cannot be accepted. What is required under Sub-rulc (3) of Rule 3 of fhc Niyam is tbat fhe notk»of thc incetmg spccifyu^ thc date, timc and placc shaU be caused to be despatehed 7 days before fhe meetit^. It is not necessaiy for passing of a no confidence inotion fhat notice of fhe meetmg shoiibi be served 7 clear days before fhe date of the I meetii^. Thus, fhe requirement of 7 clear days te not for 1 /ddiveiy of notice but it is for despatch of fbe notice. Whefher ^ SI'IB^K !!gI;l!lfflJfe the notices are scrvcd before 7 clear days of the laeeting or not, is not relevaat The contention that fhe proceedii^s were not truthfulty iccoided cannot also be acccpted. As obscrvcd above, fhe record clearfy iadicates fhat 14 Panchas including fhc petitioner had pardcipated ia fhe inectmg where 14 votes were cast-11 votes ^vere in favour of fhe no coiifidence inotion, none agamst and 3 votes were held to bc iavaUd. Thus aU 14 votes are accounted for. TTiere is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had lodgcd any protest regardiag fhe conduct of fhe ineetmg or that fhe proceedit^s had not been trufy aud faithfuUy recorded. The record indicates that the petitioaer was also given aa opportunily to speak before the votm^. Thus, fhere has been conipliaace of the slatutoiy rcquirements. The contention that thc noticcs wcre not property issued caimot also be accepted as fhe rccord clcarfy indicates that notices were ordered to be despatehcd on 21.1.2002 aad copfes fhcreof received by tbe Grani Sahayak on 22.1.2002 and that notkies were dufy served on aU fhe 14 inembers of fhe Giaxn Panchayat which is clear fix>in fhe endorsement dated 24.1.2002 of fhe Gram Sahayak. 7. Adinittedty, the inectmg was heM on 4.2.2002 at which fhc no confidcnce motion was passed and if the pctitioncr felt hersclf aggncvcd with thc niotion of no coiifidcncc, shc could bave chaBenged the same by taking recourse to Sub-scction (4) of Section 21of fhe Adhiiuyani, which provides fhat Sarpanch or Up-sarpaach desirins to cliaUenge the validily of a niotion of no confideace shaU be required to refer fhe dispute to the CoUector wifhia 7 days Smaaa. the date on which the iaotk>n of no g?' sSt'IIBIi"' 'S "iSft.. confidcncc was passed. TIu®vsas obviously not donc. Instead, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 91 of fhe Psaactiayat Raj Adhiuyam which was entertained by respondent No.2 and dismissed on merits. An appeal under Section 91 of the said Adhuuyam. was not maintainable. To fhc mamtamabiUty of fhe appeal, aa objection was raiscd but it does not appear to have been dccided by respondent No.2 who instead proceeded to dispose of the appeal on inerits. The record also does not grve an indication as to when iu fact fhc appeal was fited. A rubber steunp on fhe mcino of appcal bearing fhe signatuic of fhc Superintendcnt of Collectorate Raiggrh bears ttic date *8 MARCH 2002" aad at the teft mssps. of tfae fiist page of fhe inemo of appeal there is a hand-written endorscinent which reads thus:- ''Prescnted by Stui I.P.Shanna, Advocate. Register a case. Notice fhe Respondents obtain thc docuincnts of fhc lower Court. Heard on fhe point of stay. Stay is hcreby graated t31 next date. Sd/-(iUegibte) 11/02/2002 ADC'(fll^ible) The date under fhe signature reads "11.02.2002". The date on fhe secoad page ofthe nieino of appeal reads "Raigarh Duiaak 8.3.02." The first order sheet in fhe case was recordcd on 11.3.2002. Thc question is ifthe niem.o of appcal beais the date "8.3.2002'' and fhe endorsement of fhe Superintendent of CoBectorate, Ksdgarb is also dated 8th March 2002, it is difficult to imagine as to how the date imder the hand-written endorsement couM be *11.02.2002". Obvwusfy that is wroiag. A memo of appeal dated 8*tl March 2002 caanot contam. an :h;s -^SS^, 'eSSK endorseinent of tiie Aufhority dated 11.2.2002. Be fhat as it may, even assuinit^; fhat the appeal could be treated as a dispute uader Sub-sectk>n (4) of Section 21 of thc Adhnuyam wtdch also lay before fhe CoBcctor, it would be barred by tiine having not been raised witfain 7 days fixiin fhe date of tneeting which was held on 4.2.2002. Therefore, a dispute havii^ not been raised wifhin. the prescribed penod, the petitioner cannot, ra these proccediags, be permitted to assaU the vaUdily offhe no confidence motion passed against her. In fhis view of the matter, decision on ofher issues and coiitentions raised wouM be purely acadeinic for the purposc of fhis case and as such tbsy are left open to be considered in aa appropriate pnx»eding ifraised. 8. For the reasons afiaresaid, fhe -petitmn fails and te disinMsed. Thcre shall however be no order as to costs. Sd/- P. C. Naik Judge