$ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATrISGARH) SINGRE 3EN$H i WRIT PETITION No.2aK’g/ OF 2006 Smt. Anuj Bai Wife of Shri Kuhjal Singh Diwan, aged about 29 years, Caste-Kanwar, Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Pachri, PETITIONER Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, Policevgiral—I‘dlmv Pithoura, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: /‘The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). District The Collector, v/Mahasamund, (C.G.). The Sub Divisional Officer Authority), Mahasamund, District Mahasamuné (C.G.). / (Prescribed 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad District Panchayat Mahasamund, Mahasamund (C.G.). Smt. Resham Bai, Up-Sarpanch, / Village Panchayat Pachri; 6. gr’Umesh Kumar, Panch; 7. Premlal', Panch; " a / 8. Vimal; Panch; Smt. Dasri Bai, Panch; . y 10. Smt. Nemin Bai, Panch; g '3 11‘. Bhisham, Fi’an‘c‘h; /12. Smt. Ameshwari Bai, Panch; //~ 13. Gosai Das, Panch; /14. Jhagarlal,Panch; . 15 Smt. Rath Bai, Panch; ~16. Sunder Lai, Panch; The respondent No.5 to 16 are resident of Village Panchayat, Pachri; Janpad Panthayat / ./’. Mahasamund, Police Station Pithour‘a’; .Ta‘hsil - and District Mahasamund (C.G.).v WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIQLE 226(227 OF THE 4 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARL PROHIBITION ETC. ‘ ‘M- XI—HC-78 3am,m,f%lmg{ w mm w?335$ . 1H 2004 WW (Wig) WWW mmm WW§WW WWW éxwatrksr 28-6-2006 Mr. V.K. Pandey, counsel f Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Deputy dvocate General for the State/resp9ndents No.1, 2 & 3, on advance copy. Heard on admission. By this writ petition, the p titioner has questioned legality, propriety and correctness of the order date 20‘“ June, 2006, passed by the Coiiector, Mahasamund, whereby the refe ence made by the petitioner has been rejected. Brief facts leading to tiling of this writ petition are that the petitioner was elected sarpanch of Village anchayat: Pachri and she was discharging her duty as such. However, the anchas of the Village Panchayat made an application before the Sub Divis t Officer, the prescribed authority, under’ Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panch yat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpaneh Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchaya Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avis was ‘Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 199 ’). Learned prescribed authority after satisfying himself about the admi sibility of notice, fixed the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 29-4-2006 or consideration of no confidence motion against the petitioner and directe for issuance of notice, on which the notice dated 18-4-2006 (Annexure P—4) nder sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, specifying the date, time a d place of the meeting, was issued td the petitioner. ln pursuance of that, eting of the Panchayat was convened on 29-4-2006 at 11 a.m. in the Pa chayat Bhawan: Pachri. Vide resolution Annexure P—6, no confidence mo ion was carried out against the petitioner. The petitioner made reference o the Collector under the provisions of the petitioner. i a e XI—HC—78 mm ‘ ‘ . ooo..o?oooo?.€$o./o LO- ‘3 W Zooé WW(W) mam WWW WWW&'%Q%W WWW ’ 2" %3T%u3n%31 Sectioh 21 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swara} Adhiniyam, 1993, and the same has been rejected by the impugned order. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that the notice was received by her on 25-4-2006 ‘.e'. four days before the date of meeting, therefore, same was not in conf §ity with the provisions of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994. as such, she could ot participate in the meeting also. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, envisages that “the notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and pi thereof shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Secretary of Gram Panchayat to every member of‘the Panchayat concerned seven da before the meeting’., Therefore, sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 equires that the notice is to be dispatched; before seven days. There is requirement of the Rule that it is to be‘ delivered seven days before the eeting. As the notice was despatched on 18-4-2006 and the meeting was d on 29-4-2006, there was no illegality in ’ the notice and there was no co trévention of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. ln the circumstances, l do ot find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Collector, as also he prescribed authority, and as such, this writ petition has no merit, same st liable to be dismissed and it is hereby s dismissed, in limine. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No. 33012006 stands disposed of. ‘ Soma ‘3 ”D ‘ sw- L.C. Bhadoo Judge o m e n e