Hl\\ GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Single Bench : \ Honb’le Shri Sum’l Kumar Sinha J. Writ Petition (c1 No. 5553 of 2008 E Smt. Suman Suchita Lakra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others Post for: 2/ /04/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha, Judge N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR k/ Single Bench : N Honb’le Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J. Writ Petition 1C! No. 5553 of 2008 PETITIONER Smt. Suman Suchita Lakra W/o Shri Antonis Lakra, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Koylakachar, Post Goriya, Tehsil- Kunkuri, District— Jashpur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Additional Collector, District Jashpur (G:G.) 3 Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tehsil- Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) 4 Smt. Pyaso Bai W/o Shri Santosh Nag, Aged about 30 years Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Goriya, Tehsil— Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiai Agpearance: Mr. Rahul Jha, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lavwer, for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Counsel for respondent No.4. Writ Petition (C! No. 5553 of2008 um ORDER K/ (2‘ .04.2oo9) Following order of the Court was SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. delivered by (1)‘ Challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 17.9.2008 (Annexure—P/4) passed by respondent No.2 in Revenue Case (Appeal) No. 33-A/89 (6) 2007-08, whereby stay has been granted in favour of respondent No.4 against the order removing respondent No.4 from the post of Sarpanch as a consequence of no confidence motion passed by the Gram Panchayat against her. (2) The facts, briefiy stated, are as under:- The petitioner is an elected Panch of Gram Panchayat Goriya, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.). Gram Panchayat consists of 21 Panchas. Respondent No.4 was the eiected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The elected members of Gram Panchayat gave a notice to move a motion of no confidence against respondent No.4 to the Prescribed Authority in accordance with Rules. On receiving the notice, the Prescribed Authority, after being satisfiedJfixed the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat to consider the motion of no confidence. Tehsiidar Kunkuri was nominated as the Authority to preside over the meeting. The meeting was convened on 8.9.2008 and the motion of no confidence was passed against respondent No.4 with a \ majority of 17 : 2 votes. \ Consequently, an order of removal was served upon respondent No.4 by the concerned Authority. Against the said ’/// / " , Writ Petition (C) N0. 5553 of 2008 Q‘V/y motion and the order, respondent No.4 flled an appeal before the Additional Collector, Jashpur (respondent No.2) under Rule 3 of the C.G. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995. Respondent No.2 entertained the appeal and passed the impugned order dated 17.9.2008 and stayed the execution of the order dated 11.9.2008 passed by‘the Prescribed Authority in consequence of the motion of no confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat in the said meeting. The aforesaid order has been challenged in this Petition. (3) The singular contention raised is that in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the C.G. Panchatat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1993), a reference only)under sub-section (4) was maintainable, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector was without jurisdiction. (4) Sub—Section (4) of Section 21 [of the G.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 reads as under:- “21. No-confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch.- (1) xxxxxx (2) xxxxxx (3) xxxxxx (i) xxxxxx (ii) xxxxxx (iii) xxxxxx (4) If the Sarpanch or the Upsarpanch, as the case may be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under sub-section (1), he shall, within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as possible, within thirty days from the dateon which it was received by him, and his decision shall be final". ; 4 Writ Petition (C) No. 5553 of2008 (5) A bare perusal of sub-section (4) makes it clear that within 7 days from the date on which motion was carried a dispute has to be referred to the Coilector who shall decide it within the stipuiated period and his such decision shall be finai. The provisions of the reference as aiso the finality of the decision taken by the Collector in the reference under sub-section (4) of Section 21, if read in context of the provisions of the appeai with further provisions of Appeilate Authority and the Iimitation etc.,it would be clear that the two provisions operate in different fields and in view of the provisions of Section 21 (4) of the Act 1993, the Additional Collector would not be having jurisdiction to entertain an appeal tiled by an aggrieved party against whom a motion of no confidence was passed. His remedy lies in filing a reference to the Collector under sub—section (4) of Section 21 of the Act 1993. (6) lt’s a settled principle of law that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and a nullity remains nullity and can be so declared at any stage. In case on hand, the Additional Collector was having no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal either against passing of a no confidence motion or an order issued in consequence'thereof, which only communicates the said motion passed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector is a nullity. (7) ln the result, the Petition is allowed and impugned order passed by the Additional Collector is quashed. / Sdl- : Sunil Kumar Sinha (8) No costs. Judge