7mm m zoo @ Wm mw (Ww) tie: 2mg ammém mwmw$i i i WWW§mmamlm§rr E $3¢Wm 7. Shri N rad Sahu. Member, Janpad Pancha at, Aarang, Tehsil - Aarang, District 1- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8. Smt. andan Bai Kurrey. Member, JanpadE Panchayat, Aarang, Tehsil - Aarang.' District —- Raipur, Chhattisga’rh. 9. Shri ls war Sahu. Member, Janpad Pancha at, Aarang, Tehsil - Aarang, District Raipur.Chhattisgarh. 10. Shri So chand Chelak. Member, Janpad Pancha ‘at, Aarang, Tehsil - Aarang, District Raipur.Chhattisgarh 11. Shri S t Ram Sahu, Member, Janpad Pancha at, Aarang, Tehsil - Aarang, District Raipur,Chhattisgarh. i 12. Shri Gcipendra Verma, Member, Janpad Pancha t, Aarang, Tehsil - Aarang, District Raipur,Chhattisgarh. 13. Smt. T min Bai Sahu, Member, Janpad Pancha at, Aarang, Tehsii - Aarang, District Raipur,Chhattisgarh. 14. Shri Naresh Chandrakar Member, Janpadi Panchayat, Aarané, Tehsil - Aarang District — Raipur, Chhattisgarh. / 15. Smt. nits $ahu, Member, Janpad / "Panch at, Aarang, Tehsil - Aarang, District Raipur,Chhattisgarh. 16. Smt. J i Laxmi Verma, Member, Janpad mm .........-...............“a 200 aw WW W 3a ygwm‘ L ‘ "1 @ mm a 200 W,W,W W m m................3........".....,....». ..............W 200 awm (W) I mmm L WW§WW / I have heérd Iearned coun for the parties. s l In the matters of Tejlal (su ra), Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court while considering the v Iidity of the no-conndence motion passed in a meeting convened by the counc lors themseives in place of Chief Municipal Officer. who 'alone was authoriz d to convene the meeting, held that the meeting so convened was illegal s the same was convened by a body not authorized to convene such meetl g and accordingly, quashed the motion of no-confrdence against the petitio . _ angan (supra). in para-8 of the order it has $a’fmm ln the matters of Bhulin been held thus: “8. The second part of sub rule (3) of Rule 3 mandates that the prescribed authority after xing date, time and place of the meeting within the prescn‘ period not later than 15 days as laid down in the ifrst part f the Rule, shall cause dispatch of I notice of suchmeeting to e ery member of the Panchayat 7 days before the meeting. The s id latter part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of 1994 Rules is mandate as intimation of date, time and place of meeting to every me is essential to ensure his presence, if he so desires, in the g to be held on such vital issue of passing of non-confidence ion." ln the instant case, from ba e perusal of the document of Annexure P/1 it is manifestly clear that the pres ribed authority aner satisfying himself with respect to admissibility of the o-confidence motion tabled against the petitioner, fixed time, date and pl ce for convening the said meeting against the petitioner. He/alsoappointed S b Divisional Officer (Revenue) as presiding ofticer to preside over the meeting o be held on 13.5.2009 and further directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janp d Panchayt, Arang to serve the notice of WWWW Fs/95——11/2008e—1,00,ooo. n m ‘n t @ “£11200 mm<m> mmm 9 ' Wamitwm $3fma1€m nce motion on all the members of Janpad Panchayat and obtain their ac owledgement. Accordingly, the notice of Annexure P/1 was served upon he members of Janpad Panchayat including the petitioner also as the docum tof Annexure Pl1 bears the signature of the petitioner. The orders relied u n by the petitioner are entirely on different ' facts. Argument of learned co nsel for the petitioner that the order of Annexure P/1 does not satisfy he requirements of Rule 3(3) of the Ruies, 1994, cannot be accepted as fro .bare perusal of the document of Annexure P11 it is evident that the same as been issued under the signature of the prescribed authority, it mentions he date, time & place where the meeting to consider no-contidence motion to be convened; and the Chief Executive Officer has been directed to date, time and place of no-canfl ct service of the said notice on all the members concerned. Therefore, the document of Annexure P/1 can not cease to be a notice only because the same contains satisfaction of the prescribed authority regarding admissibil of the no-contidence motion against the petitioner. For the aforesaid reason , l do not‘tind any substance in the instant petition; the same deserves to dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingly, dismissed. // // J 7/ sdl‘ Mash“ // evdra my“ Juége l l Consequently. lA No.01 a o stands disposed/ot/w r / ~ 7 l l i l l I l l e e i