HTfiH COURT OF CHHATTISfiARH AT BIL-ASPUR W_.P.fg No.746 OF 2008 PETITIONER APPELLANT Radheshyam Chauhan Vs RESPONDENTS Sto.te of C.G. and others O R bE R POSTON^A.PRIL2008 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge HISH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.m No.746 OF 2008 PETITIONER APPELLANT Radheshyam Chauhan, son of Ubar Singh, a9ed about 31 yeors, Sarpanch of (Srom Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand <& Tahsl Saraipali, District Mahctsamund (CG) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan,, Raipur (C<5). Non-Applicant No.l 2. The Additional Coljector, Mahasamund, bistrict AAahasamund (CG] 3. Sub-Division Officer <& Prescribed Authority (Ponchayat), Saraipali, Dist. Mahasamund (C^) 4. Shri Kheersai badsena, Upsarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand <& Tahsil Saraipali, Distt. AAahasamund (C(?) 5. Shri Set Kumar Nishad, Ponch, (5ram Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand <& Tahsil Sarapaji, bistt. AAahasamund (CO) 6. Shri Nand Lal Sao, Panch, Gram Panchayat Jamhart, Vikas Khand <& Tahsi! Sarapalj, Distt. Mahasamund (C<$) 7. Shri Tikaram Yadav, Panch, <3ram Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand <& Tahsil Sarapati, Distt. AAahasamund (.CG} .^--"T8®, yf^\. ^Bs^. i ^? w 8. Shri ShQnkar Chauhan, Panch, Sram Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand <& Tahsil Sarapali, bistt. AAahasamund (C^) 9. Shri Shaniram Bariha, Panch, ^ram Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand <& Tahsii Sarapaii, Distt. Mahasarnund {CG) 10. Shri Anant Pradhan, Panch, ^ram Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand & Tahsil SarQpQli, D'stt. AAahasamund (C<5) 11.5hri Harishchandra BQriha, Panch, &ram PonchayQt Jamhari, Vikas Khand A Tahsii Sarapaii, Distt. AAahasamund (CO) 12. Shri Bhuwno Loie, Panch, Gram Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand & Tahsij Sarapali, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) 13. Smt. Sumitra Satpathi, Panch, ^ram Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand & Tahsil Sarapali, bistt. Mohasamund (C&) 14. Smt. Shurubai Rano, Panch, <5ram Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand A Tahsil Sarapali, Distt. AAahasamund {CQ} 15. Smt. Sabya ^adtiya, Panch, Gram Panchayot Jamhari/ yikcs Khand & TahsiJ Sarapoli, Distt. AAahasamund (CG) 16. Smt. Neelabai Chauhan, Panch, ^ram Panchayat Jamhari, Vikas Khand <& Tahsil Sarapali, Distt. Mahasamund (C<5) '^ Present: O R bE R ^ (Passed on ^l Apni, 2008) Dhjrendra MishrQ._J With the consent of the parties, fhe motter wo.s heard finaily o.t the admission stGge itse!f. 2. The petitioner, the etected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat- Jamhari, has been removed from the post of Sarpanch, by the order of Annexure P/2 passed by Sub bivisional Officer, the presc-ribed o-uthority, as 'No Confidence Motion' ago.inst the petitioner tabled by the members of Panchayat, was carried out in the meeting dated 27 November 2007 (Annexure P/l) with the requisite mojority. The chajjenge led to the 'No Confidence Motion' of Annexure P/l and the order of Annexure P/2 under Sec-tion 21(4) of the Chho.ttisgo.ph Panchovat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short 'the Act, 1993'), has been further rejected by the Upper CoUector, AA.aha.so.mund yi.de order dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure P/3). 3. The petitioner has question.ed the legality, propriety and yalidity of the 'No Confidence Motion' of Annexure P/l, the order of the prescribed authority (Annexure P/2) and the order nf dismi-sso.1 of his Qpplication under Section 21(4) of the Ac.t, AAr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. Mr. Rajendra Agrawal, Panel Lowyer a •• For the petitioner. For the State Mr. R.S. Pate!, Advoccte. «• For respondents No.4 to lOand 13 to 16. M-s. Sharmilo. Singhai, Advoc.o.te For the r'espondent No. 12. w 1993 (Annexure P/3) on. the grounds; (i) that the 'No Confidence AAotion' was to.b!ed by 11 members of the Po.nc-hoyo.t on 13.11.2007 an.d the prescribed o.uthority directed the Chief Executiye Officer to submit hi.s report, however, without obtaining the report of the Chief Executive Offic.er, the dote for considering the 'No Confidence AAotion' wos fixed on 27.11.2007 o.t 2.00 p.m. ond Shrj AA.R.Tirkey, Tehsildor was appointed o.s presiding officer for the obove meeting; (ii) the notice was ordered to be dispatched through Panchayat and Sociaj Education Organizer; the meeting to consider the 'No Confidence Motion' was presided over by Shri K.L. Verma, Naib Tehsildar though the prescribed authority had authorized Shri N.R. Tirkey to preside; the meeting commenced at 11.20 a.m. in place of 2.00 p.m. as fixed by the prescribed authority ond thus, the whole proceedings to con.sider the 'No Confidence AAotion' have been held in utter vioiation of Ru!e 3(3) of the 5roim. Panchoiyat Ke Sarpanch To.tha Up-Sarponch, Janpad Ponchayat Tatha Zilo. Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice- President Ke Vjrudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (for convenience *the Rules, 1994') 4. Learned counse! for the petitioner submits thot the pre.scribed o.uthority o..s o.!so the leamed Upper Coliector ho.ye disregarded the above grounds taken by the petition.er and ho.ve upheid the 'No Confidence Motion' passed against the petitioner in the meeting he{d in violation of the mandci.tory rules. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the r'espondents contended tho.t al! the 14 members of the ^ram Po.nchoyat inciuding the petitioner participated in the meeting '-y/""^ i J. dated 27.11.2007, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity hy the pre-siding officer to expre-ss his view in the meeting, however, he did not raise any objection that the time of the meeting ha.s been preponed or the presiding officer has not been duty appointed by the SDO or any objection about the presence of the members of ^ram Panchayat in the said meeting o.n.d he po.rticipated <& voted in the proc-eedings. In these circumstances, any irregularity present in the proceedings of the presc.ribed authority or committed by the presidjng officer, would not vitiate the 'No Confidence AAotion', which has been otherwise passed with the requisite majority necessary for passing the INo Confidence Motion' under the Act, 1993. 6. I hn.ve heard iearned counse! for the parties o.nd peru-sed the impugned order as also the material availoble on record. 7. So far as the first objection is concemed, the object of the provision is that the prescribed o.uthority i.s to so.ti.sfy himself about the 9enuineness of the *No Confidence AAotion' to.bied by the members of th.e Po.nchayat to rule out o.ny frivolous motion of no confidence by unscrupulous persons. In the in.sto.nt ca-se, the petitioner had -submitted o. prejiminory objection of Annexure P/4 thot the 'No Confidence AAotion' has been tabied only by 10 members of Panchayat and therefore, it jg nnt in nccordo.nce with lo.w o.nd the so.me deserves to b© rejected. Howeyer, no objection regarding identity of the members has been taken. Even otherwise, th©presiding officer o.fter getting himself satisfied, fixed the date of the meeting for c-onsideration of 'No Confidence AAotion' o.nd o.ppointed the presiding officer. Since the 'No Confidence AAotion' was duly co.rried out wlth the requisite majority, therefore, the contention of the petitioner th.at the prescribed o-uthority cou!d not ho.ye issued notices o.s the report called by him was not submitted on the date when the notices were directed to be i-ssued, is who!!y untenabl e. 8. So far as the objection that the notices were dispatched through Panchayat o.nd Socio.l Education Organizer, an o.uthority not mentioned in the rules, is concerned, the fact that the notices were dispatched on 20t November 2007 for the meeting dated 27.11.2007 by the prescribed authority and that ail the member-s of the Po.nchayat participated in the soid meeting, goes to show that the notices of the meeting were du!y served upon the members of the Po.nc ho.yo.t. after di.spatch and therefore, the objection that the notices were dispatched through o.n authority nnt mentioned in the ruie-s, toose.s significance. 9. The !ost ground agitated by the petitioner that the prescribed authority o.ppointed the Tehsildar AA.R. Tirkey to preside the m.eeting whereas the meeting was presided over by K.L. Verma, who wa.s not authorized by the prescribed authority, is concerned, the petitioner ho.s not ro.i-sed any objection regording incompetence of the pre-siding officer, in the meeting to con.sider the 'No Confidence AA.otion' and th.e l.earned Upper Coilector has overruled the objection of the petitioner in this regard with o.n obseryntion that from perusaj of the rec-ord of the pre.scrlbed authority jt is seen that Shri K.L-. Verma, No.ib Tehsildar, hos been appointed a.s th.e presiding offic-er to preside the meeting. ""/ 10. So fo.r a.s the objection that time of the meeting was preponed and it commenced o.t 11.20 am in plo.ee of 2.00 pm by the presiding officer, is concerned, the members of the Po.nchayat ho.ve participated in the m.eeting -so he!d without any objection and therefore, the business tpansacted in the said meeting, can not be inyo.jido.ted only because it wa-s commenced before the sc.heduled time. 11. In the result, there is no jil.egality or infirmity in the impugned order, which would occasion faijure of Justice or graye injustice to the parties, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition being deyoid of sub.sto.nce deserves to be digmjssed o.nd i-s hereby dismissed. 12. In view of above, I.A No,2 is dispo.sed of and the stay order stands vacated, 13, No order a.s to cost-s. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 0^/4/2008