HIGHGOIJRTOFGHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR WRIT PETmON <C) No.255a<rf'2Q08 PETmONER : Muritram Yadav, aged about27 years, s/o Late Kanhaiyalal Yadav S/o Bheradih, Pbst Seoni, Champa, Thana and Tahsil Champa, Distt. JaujgirChampa. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State ofClihattisgarh, throu^i Secretary, Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiir,Distt. Raipur. 2. Additional Collector, Janjgir Ghampa. 3.8pecified OfBeer, Sub Divisional OfGcer (Revenue) Champa, Distt. Janjgir Chatapa. 4. Gram Pauchayat Jata, through its Secretary, Gram Panchayat Jata Tateil Chanipa, Distt. JaBJgirChampa. 5. Presiding Officer, Tahsildar, Ghampa, Distt. Janjgir Champa. 6. Ghasiram s/o Sonsay Karsh, GramPanchayaf Jata, Tahsil Champa, Dist. Janjgir Champa. WRTTPETmONUNDERARTICLE226AND2270FTHE eoNSTriunoN OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. 3. Presetit: ShriPara.gKotecha,Advpcatefortihepetitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govenmient Advocate wMiShri AjitSm^i, Panel Lawyer fbr the State?respdl'lderit N16,116 3 & 5. ShriSatyayAgrav^,^Adyo(^foF&ei^p(^^ Shri Awadh"Fr^athi,A(ivocatefortheresp(MidentNo. 6. ORDERfQRAD (Passed on 15a day of July, 2009) Heard. 1. Challenge inlhis petition is to the order dated 25.04.2008 (Annexure P/5) passed by fhe respondent No. 2 in R.C. No. 01/A-89(6)/2006- 2007, wiiereby ithas been directed to hold a fredimeetmgto consider noconfidencemotiQnagamsttheSMpanchi.e.therespondentNo.6, dW.. . . • • ' • • . . ' as the earlier no confidence motiondated 30.06.2007 beingnotin aecordance with Ifae provisions of section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panehayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') read with provisioas of Chhattisgarh Panehayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up Saq)anch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila :Panehayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (forshort'theNiyam, 1994'). tf^ 6 The respondent No. 6 is duly elected Sarpaneh ofGram PachayatJata, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa. 15 panchas out of 18 panchas moved thespeeified ofBcer/respondent No.3 on 15.06.2007 to mitiate no confidence motion against the respondent No. 6. The preseribed authority issued notices on 22.6.2007 under Rule 3(3) of the Niyam, 1994 for holding no confidence motion on 30.06.2007, On i.2007, 16 panchas includmg the Sarpanch were present. No objection with regard to notice was raised by either pariy. In the no confidence motion meeting, out of 15 members, 13 voted in favour of no confidence motion and 2 voted against the no confidence motion. Being aggrieved, fhe respondent No. 6 made a reference undersection 21(4) ofthe Adhimyam, 1993 on fhe ground that fhe meeting was not called within 15 days as the panchas moved the specified ofRcer on 15.06.2007, and the no confidence motion meeting was held on 30.06.2007 which is eontrary to the provisions ofsection 21 oftiie Adhiniyam, 1993 and 8ection3(3) ofthe Niyam, 1994. Leamed eounsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits fhat as per Rule 3(3) oflfae Niyam, 1994, the requirement ofnotiee is dispatching fhe notice to every member offhe Panchayat concemed seven days before the meeting. In the present case admittedly, fhe notiee was dispatched on22.'06.2007 forthe meetingto be held on 30.06.2007. Thus, thwe is clear seven days notice before the meeting was held. Leamed counsel further subnutted tiiat the respondetit No. 2 has not considered the facts that the notice was received by the specified oiBcer on 15.6.2007 Further, the respondent No. 2 has not e^amined the requiremeiit of section 21(3) ofthe Adhuuyam, 1993 in its proper perspective. Per contra, Shri Awadh Tripathi, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondent No. 6 submits that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 is perfectly valid and legal. I have heard leamedcounsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the notice was dispatehed on 22.6.2007 for the meetingto be held on 30.06.2007. The provision pfRule 3(3) oflfae Niyam, 1994 is clear on flus point as '' it provides for fixation ofdate, time and plaee for the meeting should lllBai- not be more Ihan 15 days from 1fae date ofreeeipt offlie said notiee. The notice was received by the specified authority on 15.6.2007 and the date for holding the meeting was fixed on 30.06.2007 which is not more than 15 days. Thus, on facts, the prescribed authority has complied wifhfhe provisions oflawas enshrined in Rule 3(3) oftfae Niyam, 1994 and section 21(3) ofthe Adhhuyam, 1993 in its letter and spirit. 7. This Court, in Ghanshyam Yadav v. Ramfshwar Sahu and others1, held that no prejudice, whafsoever is caused in any manner when the resolution was passed by overwhetaiing majority. Thus, no coofidence motion eamiot be declared as null and void. In the present case, the position is tiie same as out of 18 members, two third ofthe members constituting Panchayat were present and cast their votes. 13 votes, more than three fourth ofthe members present and casttheu' votes in favour of no confidence motion. Thus, no confidence motion was "carriedout". 8. As a result and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 25.04.2008 (Amiexure P/5) passed by the respondeiit No. 2 is set aside and fhe no-eonfidence motion placed in the Gram Panchayat meeting held on 30.06.2007 is declared as earried out. Necessary consequences flowing fromthis order shall follow. 9. The petition is allowed. No order asto costs. ..t^sw ^^l Amit ^. I2607(2)SLJ1S1