U J WGLE 35m” IN THEVHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI’ISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G ) WRIT PETITION (C) NO: S965 OF 2011 / PETITIONER : Smt. Pramila Chandrakar, aged about 39 years, W/o Vishram Chandrakar, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS / RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Panchayat State of Chhattisgarh, Old Nursing Hostel, Mantralaya Compound, Raipur .(C.G.) 3. ( Collector, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Kabirdham (C.G.) 5. Sub—Divisional Officer, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 6. P.R. Bhaskar, Naib Tahsildar, Kawardha, District Kabirdham -(C.G.) 7. Gram Panchayat Pendra, Janpad Panchayat, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA a HIGH CUURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPI IR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 5965 of2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WDIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri R,S.Ba,ghel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the Slate/respondent N0. I to 5. 0 R D E R (Passed on 30"; day of September, 201 1) y Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby the representation of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 23.08.2011 removing the petitoiner hem the post of Sarpanch, has\been rejected by the Collector, Kabeerdham. The petitoiner further seeks to declare the motion of no-confidence held on 19.08.2011 to be against. law and to declare the result thereon, as null and void. Wm Shri Baghel, learned counsel appealing for the petitoiner submits that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Pendra. Janpad Panehayat‘ Kawardha, District. Kabeerdham. A notice under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Satpanch Tatha. Up—Sarpanch, Janpad Tatha Jila. Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President ke Virudh Avishwas Prasatav) Niyam, 1.994 was given to the respondent No. 5. The proceedings 'Were initiated by the respondent. No. 5 for no- confidence motion. Shri Baghel titrther submits that the respondent No. 7, who was the Presiding Officer, on 19.08.2011 started the proceeding of the meeting without giving an opportunity to the @ PETITIONERS : Smt. Pramila. Chandrakar. VERSI IS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhaltisgarh & Others. petitioner to respond against the no-confldence motion and explain her case. Voting for no-coniidence was done. On 23.08201 1, the respondent No. 5 informed the petitoiner about pa3sing of the no confidence motion against her; Shri Baghel submits that the action of the respondent authorities are in violation of the statutory rules and in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Vim On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that out of 12 members. 9 voted in favour of no-confidence motion and 3 voted in favour ofthe petitoiner. Thus, there was a clear majority and the motion was passed by more than 3/4 which is the requirement of law. Thus, there is no error in the proceedings, as alleged by the petitioner. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Election is the basic pillar of the democratic set up. A candidate who participates in the election process gets elected by majority of votes polled in his favour. In a similar way, when a. no-confidence motion is carried against an elected candidate, and the motion is carried out by a. clear majority, the same cannot be held as illegal merely on the ground of some technical defects and the allegations made by the petitioner, which are not supported by any documentary evidence, or otherwise. This Court, in Ghanshyam Yadav v. Ramcshwar Sahu & Others] held that no prejudice, whatsoever is caused in any manner when the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority. Thus, no g“; ')4. 'JI ‘2007 (2) BLJ 181 confidence motion cannot be declared as null and void. In the instant case, 9 members voted in favour of the no-confldence motion and only 3 candidates voted in favour of the petitioner, thus, it. is clear that the members of the Gram Panchayat. have lost faith in the Sarpanch, and thus, he was removed by carrying no- eonfidence motion. The petitioner participated in the proceedings, however: her contention that she was not aiforded an opportunity to respond, is not well founded as no material has been produced to establish her contention. $W In view of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove. this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the irnpugied order which is legal, just. and proper. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/~ SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge