v" .I.N_T11E_H;G§ 20m QF_aim;T2I§GAR§._JHD£c&T§R§ a1: BILA S?UR P E’I‘I‘I‘I ONER ' wRzT FETITIoN No..LA$D OF 2001 Kamprakash Sghu, aged about 45 years, V son 0£ shri Puneet Ram Sahu, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat 'DULNA', Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, Tahsil and Districzt ~ Raipur (chhattisgarh). VERSUS XV ix 1 The state o£ chhattarh. Through : Te Colltor Ripur. Gam Panchaya Dua, Through : mt Dec Kunwar Bai: UpaSaranch Panchayat Dulna, Janpa Panchayat, Abhanpr. Tah. and Distric - Raipur (CG. The resie 'Autharity, (Shri Tb; Thakur, Nayab Tahsildar) Gobhra Iaapara, Abhanpur. aEixIIQN.v§D§R.AaT_I.cLE§ 2.2§/.2.21 9F.¢&E.C9N§T§.T§T.I.ozs QF Ema avg 9R2E333§ EAEUEE OF imité. ) isg h ec a r t ln S p, & u t ) <g9t, Pcrbd s gw 9w .‘XE-HG 22 3m W, WW W y Waag/zom ' Notices were iss the respondents 2 & 3 today. 'dence Motion taken up again that the procedure prescribe when the No Confiéence Motio btraneouslyr urged before me Panama} Ke Sarpanch 'Avis h d on 3/9/2061. None represents The matter pertains to No Confi- as Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Vulna', on 11/4/2001 on which date the petitioner was removed f om the post of Sarpanch. Shri Kishore‘ Bhadhuri’.‘ learned co nsel for the petitioner submits in this regard was not followed was taken up. Shri Badhurirhas at Rule 3 sub-Rule (2) of Gram Prastav Niyam, 1994 has not been compl led with inasmuch as he was given n¢ ice only at the ele- venth hour though there shou d have been clear '7 days. on perusal ofAnnexure P/3 it a notifying that No Confinence 2001. - smi Badburi further rhight have been delayed i‘na only on 9/4/2001. Shri' Rajeev Shriv stave. PL for the state. Heard. the writ petztioner while serving re that notice was dated 3/4/2001 tion would be taken up on 11/4/ ubmits thatsome-where the notice ch as he received the said notice 0‘20. é p s a o h W 209 enéWEFJ WM WW mmmm ewwswm 7$3WW 21/11/2001 Shri Kishore Bach ri.‘ Counsel for the petitioner. mm<m> mm mw mmwm WW£fW1WA x $WW shri Ra jeev shr submits that what is conte; should be despatched before seven is that notice of meeting days of taking up of No Co ..2 iVasara. learned PL for the State nplated under the aforesaid Rule v. idence Motion. It appears to me that though the notice cou d have been ,served or could have been received by the writ petitioner received it onl‘ facts and circumstances of no prejudice as such can 1 inasmuch as he himself was Motion was taken up. In m tit ioner%fu/nf ortunatel y the vr it 1 on 9/4/2001. However, in the tre present case, in my opinion 3e said to have been caused to him present when my No Confidence View, if the writ petitioner wanted to make a Satenent he could have done so. The Prescrihed ‘ Authority in terms of Annexure 2 had nominated/appointed an Confidence Motion. Out of ,16 menbers officer to overosee the No ‘of the Panchayat, lZmembe rs would form, the majority of 2/3rd. st 12 votes went in favour of t‘he hen votes were actually c against it . No Confidence Motion and 4 sfy myself, the record was called In order to sat for incl uding the ballot as a lay person. Only two. ymal (v) ioee. tw mEmb motion and the other is th who wants—ee- vote against i /K./"‘ as'e f ‘aac M votes have been disarly ence Motion and four against it. cast in favour of No Confi + a a In the present / pars. I have seen the ballot papers arkings are required; one is the r whow vote5in favour of the “ v symbol xi ( X) i.e.. tke member m motion O WM ,‘ GRPRJ FS/3ll 1/200!¢—V50,000. ¢o3 3ITFéT§F rig. eh H {Wi$ m 2% §ma u gii.’ ll X}-HC-22 @6? 3W an ma MW WW WE?! mmmam '.39t since the No Confidence Motion was carried out in a demo- cratic way at grass roots level, in my view what hasubeen done should be hogoured. In the result. this petition fails and is accor dingly dismissed . Recqrd be handed over to Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, PL for the State today itself.