‘i‘si‘uxmgmE M W cgmgZ/m IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITIomc) No.é'7...7..;4o£ 2006 ’/Ghanshyam Yadav S/o Shri qwg Sunder Lal Yadav, aged about 26 years, OfflClatlng Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat Chhlnd R/o Village & Post Chhind Tahsil Sarangarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Rameshwar Sahu S/o Shri Chamru Sahu, Sarpanch (Removed) Gram (4. The Returning Officer Tahsildar Sarangarh Dist . Raigarh (C.G.) UNDER y ARTICLE Zés/g or WRIT PETITION THE comsTITUTIoN OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OE WRIT IN NATURE OE CEERTIORARI,‘ MANDAMUsl PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERES: Panchyat Chhind Tahsil Sarangarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ,r 2 . The Collector and Prescribed Officer Raigarh, Dist. i ll in Raigarh (C.G.) Jh JZ /3 . H f gwvg The Sub Officer/Prescribed. Sarangarh Dist. Divisional Officer (C.G.) HIGII COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 6774 of 2006 Peu‘tioner : Ghanshyam Yadav Versus Respondent : Ramcshwar Sahu 8t. others Shn' R. S. Fatal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Samar Behar, Advocate for the Caveater/ respondent No. 1. Shri N. K. Agarwal, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. t ORDER ( 5“ December , 2006) 1. The respondent No.1 was elected as Samanch of the Gram Panchayat Chhind, Tahsil — Sarangarh, District- Rajgarh in the election held on 15. 1.2005. The no confldence motion was brought against the mspondent No. 1 after issuance of notice on 31.3.2006. The prescribe authority i.e. Sub Divisional O$cer (Revenue), Saxangai‘h, While issuing notice, directed Shri K. S. Mandavi, the then Tahsildar, Sarangarh to preside over the meeting of no . confidence motion, which was to be held on 13.4.2006 at 12 O’clock. 2. In the meantime, Shii K. S. Mandavi was nansferred from Sarangarh and one Shn' Sameer Nag joined the oiiice of the Talisildar, Sarangarh on 4.4.2006. By virtue of the order dated 31.3.2006, Whexehy Shri Mandavi, the then Tahsildar was authorized to hold the meeting, Shti Nag presided over the meeting of no confidence motion on 13.4.2006. 3. The no confidence. motion against Salpanch/mspondetnt No. 1 was carried out by 16 votes out of 21 Panchas of tho said gram Panchayat and 5 Panchas voted against the no coniidcnca motion. As the no coniidence motion was canied out, the Sarpanch/ respondant No. 1 was dedamd disqualified and the post of Sarpanoh was deemed to be vacant. “Lu 4‘ Being aggrieved me Sarpanch/tespondent No.1 oled an appeal befole the Collector, Raigarh. The Collector, Raigarh vide order dated 16.11.2006 (Annexuxe P/ 1} passed in Case No. 03/A— ( 89]2006~2007 Village—Chind, Tahsil—Saranggarh, allowed the appeal and held that the no coniidence motion was not in accordance with law on the. ground that Shri K. S. Mandavi, the then Talisildar was authon‘zed to pleside over the meeting by name. Shri Sameer Nag, who joined the 0&ce of Tahsildar on 4.4.2006 was not anthon'zed to preside over the meeting and as such; the said meh'ng was void and non—est. 5. The Collector has ignored the fact that at the time of holding no conhdence motion Shri Mandavi was not holding the othce of the Tahsildar, Saranggarh, as such, even othexwise, Shri Mandavi was not competent to preside over the meeting. 8111i Sameer Nag, who joined the offlce of the Tahsildar, Saranggarh on 4.4.2006 by virtue of holding the post of Tahsildar, was so authorized to preside over the meeting. 6. Shri R. S. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even ifQShri Sameer Nag was not authorized by name, the no confidence motion canied against the Sarpanch/ respondent No. 1, canno be held void and nonest as 16 Panchas out of 21 have t Thakur voted in favcur of the 110 con&lcnce motion and this fact has not been disputed by the mspondent No. 1. Leaxned counsel appearing for the petitioner mlied on a dccision of the High Gourt of Madhya Pradesh in tho case of Prabhu Dayal Patel Vs. state of M.P. 85 another (2003 (5) MRI-LT. 502 (DB) } to the. effact fhat since no prejudice, whatsoever, is caused in any manner, and the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority, the no confidencemotion cannot be. declaxed as null and void. I am in respectful agreement with the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Prabhu Dayal Patel (supra). In the facts of the piesent case, no prejudice has been pointed out by the mspondent No. 1 in any manner and the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority i.e. 16 out of 21 in favour of the no conndence motion and 5 out of 21 against the. no coniidence motion. Even otherwise, Shri Sameer Nag was competent to pieside over the meeting. The lespondent No, 1 has also not raised this objection of incompetence of the presiding onicer during the no confidence motion. In the result, the impugned order dated 16.11.2006 (Annexuie 13/1) passed in Case No. 03/A-89/2006-2oo7 vmage-Chmd,‘ Tahsi1~Saranggarh, is set aside and it is directed that the resolution passed on 13.4. 2006 be given full eEeet to. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. \,, Sd/- I: f Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 J l I