_/h^K_ '& HIGH COURT OF CHHffTTISGARR FBlLASPUR SiNGLE 5ENCH: HON'BLE SHRi S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WritPetition N0^1701 QF 2006 Petitioner Smt. Saroj Bai Aadii, W/Q Shri Manohar !al Adil, Aged about 53 Yrs., Caste - n/iehar (Scheduie Caste), Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Tarenga, B!ock Bhatapara, Tehesii Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur. Versus Responcients State of C.G. Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Director Panchayat, Raipur (C.G.) Additional Coilector, Batoda Bazar, District Raipur. Sub Divisionai Orficer, Bhatepara, District Raipur. Gyanendra Agarwai, Upsarpanch, Gram Panchayat Tarenga, Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District Raipur. PFcScHt:- Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Manish Sharma, counsel for the pstitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate Generai, for the State/'respondents No.l to 4. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.o/caveator. ORAL ORDER (13"*Apri!,2006) This writ petition under Articte 226/227 of the Constitution of india is directed against an interiocutory order made by the Director of Panchayat, Raipur, second respondent herein, in a revision preferred by the fifth respondent against the interim order passed by the Additional Coiiector, Baloda Bazar, District _RajDui- the third '53 ^ .« respondenf herein^in favour of the petitioner herein, in an appeal preferred by her against the 'no confidence motion' passed against her in terms of Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred toas Adhiniyam). 2) The main contention urged in the appeai preferred to the third respondent is that !no confidence motion' shall not lie against the petitioner in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Adhinlyam inasmuch as the petitioner after her eiection on 18-1-2005 entered the ofRce of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Tarenga only on 28-2- 2005, whereas, notice of no confidence motion is dated 14-2-2006. The Additional Collector while entertaining the appeal preferred by the petitioner granted interim stay of the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner by his order dated 14-3-2006. The fifth respondent who is the Upsarpanch of the same Gram Panchayat i.e Tarenga, it isstated, preferred a revision under Section 21(2) of the Adhiniyam to the second respondent being aggrieved by the above interim order of third respondent. The second respondent while entertaining the said revision by his order dated 21 -3-2006 passed the interim order staying operation of the interim order made by the third respondent. The resuitant position is that the no confidence motion passed against the petitionerstands. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above interim order of the second respondent has preferred thiswrit petition. 3) Aithough several grounds were urged by Shri Dwrakar, iearned senior eounsel appearing for the petitioner, to highlight that the second respondent in granting the impugned interim order staying the interim order granted by the third respondent in favour of the petitionercommrtted certain irregularities ahd violation of procedure ^s. 6- governing the revision, 1 am ofthe considered opinion that this is riot a case where 1 should appreciate all those technical arguments and pronounce upon them inasmuchas 1 do not find any failure of justice in the case. The legality and merit oftheno conndence motion passed against the petitioner could be gone into in the mainappeal preferred bythe petitioner and pending before the third respondent. Suffice it to state that the main ground urged to assail the very initiation of no confidence motion under Section 21 of the Adhiniyam is not available in view of the fact that though initially notice of no confidence motion was issuedon 14-2-2006 before completion of oneyearfrom the date on which the petitioner entered the ofRce of the Sarpanch, subsequently, that date was changed and no confidence motion was passed oniy on 10-3-2006, that is to say, only after compietion of one year from the date on which the petitioner entered the office of the Sarparanch, Gram Panchayat, Tarenga. in thatview pf the matterand having regard to the principle that an office holder of electorai post in alocal bodyshouidenjoytheconfidenceofhiselectorate alithetime, i am not inclined to step in under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and allow the petitioner to continue in the electoral office till her appeaf pending^before the third respondent is decided on merit. iyioreover, it was also broughtto my notice that after no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner, the fifth respondent entered the oifice of Sarpanch on 13-3-2006. That is also another cireumstance which weighs with me not to interfere. In the resuit and in view of the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 4) The third respondent is, however, directed to dispose of the appealpending before him on merit without being influenced bythis order or any of the observations made therein. 'S^^^SSK^^^ ^" ,<\s^ '.y;. ;. l'^!-! KH/ a:"t)/! :() II 11 o' ^: 3 5' ? o 3. (1> 1 ocw•< r> E^ 1-1 C/3 e' 1? 8: 1 3- 3 3- 1u a w B) 1 B> d. 1 1 2= ^ :. S. e*: -** -r •-*• i 19- •g QI. ro 3. o' 5 f CL 11 1 w ^ a. 1 s- n> o ff S. =. n 3: 1B 1 3. 2. » g" =?. ® ^® 1 6 5 £ wo =1 ffls: 3 10 83a- I !ys <. 1 r 1 3's 1a. s' 11 0' <B t ta. 1 1 ? 3 tfl I. §' 3 s. 1 § s. s' u o % 3- <B I § 11i 5' :T (bi o.