IM THE mGH ^EOIJRT OE JUDlC'ATtJRE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRrTPETITIONNO.M@OF2002, PEITIONER RESFONDENTS ^^ ./^%-"<' <,.^p" <;|U. Syft. Brinda Sahu, W/o. Shri Shayam ' >imder Sahu, agedaB6ufZ5 years, > Sarpahch of Gram panehayat, Godam, R/o. Village and Post Godam, TeUsil SarangarIi,District-Raigarh(C.G.) VERSUS: ..''..:. ' : . - State bf Chhattisgarh • Through Gollector Raigarh Districtraigarh(C.G.) ^ The Sub-Divisional Offieer & . Prescribed Qfficer/AuthoritySarangarh, District Raigarh (G.G.) , TKe ChiefExecutive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, block Coiony Sarangarh, DistriGtRaigarh(C.G.) The Naib Thesaildar, (Presiding Officer) Sa.r£ErigarB,DistrictRaigarh(C.G.) . BhagatRam.Jangde.S/o.'ShriGlialu.. Jangde,,U;R'Sarpanch6fGrampanchayat r6dam,R/o."Village/PostCo(lam, TeliStl Sai-angarh, District Raigarii :<C.G.),{7^;,:.','',^,.^ Nanki Das,;S/d^ Not Knbwn, Panch Grampanehayat ofGodam Bed Ram; S/o. Laxam Bhardvaj, Fanch Gram Panchayat of Godam Jadgish,.S/o. Tijram Sahu.PanchGram PanGhayatofGodam. GhliabilalS/o. PUirtuBha.rdvaj.PEun.Gh Grainpartchayat Qf^Godaiii. GUasia Sidar, S/o. NofKnowa Sidar, panch(^amPancahayatofG»dam.-, Smt;SliohanBai,W/o.La]<lianlalDavid, panGhGramPailchayatOfGodam. ^ Smt.Sagar;Bai,W7Q.SuklalBhjardvaj, PanchdfCjramPanchayatCjcidam. Smt. LilavatiW/o. SykhdevSahu,Paacb ofGramPancfaayal:GodamT;^^^^^^^> Smt. Sumi'ti'a,W/o.ShriChamr|SKighu« .Nishad.FanchofGram.Paticliaya.t:'' Gedarh.' . •: ••, .. •:"..:! i,;: . :^ ,':A Saiiiiara, S/o. KhuluraBi Bfa;ardv^j,yaii||| ofGratnEaiieliayat.G&daiB.. -SW^jKW^ 'S>3-Sf':_^..S^t. lli ^i •^'^ •»Ki aa ii; •^^'F";':^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^ .^ ./.•:^^'^^if;;?^^--' ^^:'^'^ ^: " - '.^?^^-^'^/-^^^^^-^^/;^^^-.-^ .'•^-^:-^:''^^-^!:^^r--^-^^.':^... '•'•'. '. • "^.^/'--'-:-:- '-'•^ • :•./••.•:'•"' ^'^.. -'.""; \. '•-^^::"'':-;^ L'•-;. WRIT JPETmON IJNDER SAR^ OF T]H^ ;CtOS^l^CTTONS,s %'lNI)M:'tE^:'.iSS^^ NAI'tJREXlEC'Ej^GRA^MAJSfI^^ :!OTlIE]R..SSmTAB^^^Kff;:K®^3'S\^^ DIRE^TIONS, ORD'EJR'<:>R ORffEKS; ' •i.i / m <lt*iyi( »<•((«(> '75^ 'BiraicN, WTil'M're, fcai'My. ..2.-...JS?<!...lvo:....^G^.2a...... ^200 ai^WT^P ('pIyKi^ '•dll^O'Hft-fill ^rar <xiSt<i »**i^ fe^flPW ^f^ff 'ail^fl 20.12,2004 Shri R.S. Patel, couasel for (he pe'titioaer. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Panel ]|<awyer fiar icspoiMlent Wo. 1 So 4. Shri B.D. Guru, couasel&r| The pctitioncr lias pticferred of Constitution of India beind |respoadeiitNo.5 to 15. tthis petition undcr Article 226/227 s^grieved t>y the oxder (tated^ 17.12.2002 (Auaexure P-1) passetjlby fhe CoHector, Ra^arh rejectmg thc objections ofithe petitioner Iietcia and hotding the pDOceedings of 'uo confideace niotkui' valid, whe|reby no con&leiice motiaa against thc petitioncr was held tobc pass^d. , Tfae Aaia ehaffleage ia th^s petitkm, as ai^uedr by^ ^ eouasel for fhe petitioner, is that of Orani Panchayat Kc Sarpanch (hereinafitBr referred to as RBB^ accordance wifh sub-rulc (3). He ineetiTig for discussion on 'no Howcver, again on 3.9.2002 Sul)| (Aanexurc P-3] whereby tfae place) BniMmg, Oodam iustead of Gram| thesecond notice (Annexure P-3] dsys fix>m fhc date^of mcctu^. <t>l<lEl7I<fll ^ff^cff ^1^1^' ^oHa^ ^l^n? |notice under sub-nde i(3) of Rute3 I... Ansttwas Prastav N'fyaat, 1994 s of 1994^ w^ not .issued ia^ iubinits that mitialfy cfo. 27.8.2002 a noti.ee (Aanexure P-2) of meetn|ig of Paachayatwas issued to the Panchas and Sarpanch of OraBJi Panchayat Gcidam whereby the con^enGe inotiori' was fixed for 9.9.2002 at 11.00 a.m. at Gajam I^nclMyat Bhflwaa, Godam. Divisional OfSccr issucd a nQticc pf proposed meetmg.wa&^chaagpd and it was mfi)rmfid; that tte u|eeling wifl be heM in the School PattGhayat Bhawaa, Gedam. Thus, was not despatehed before sevea He furtUcr submltted fhat thc 4- 'S^ -<ia*itM<!i, snai'H-i'Ka, fa»aa<i]Igi(; WKW a»»<i<6 WSi diiiia'wft'ii* s^T'wB^j ai^ffiai ^CCTliWlW^I S^t requiremcnt of sub-rule (3) is sattefied. Therefore, ffae whole the im.pugned order is liable to be other poiat raised by leamed days before the ineeting soine therefore, the mceting was not score also fhe impugaed orderisli| On the other hand, leamed ( that poiats raised by learaed conscqucnccs, for thc reason the meetiiig, dlscussion had resolutmn was passcd. Now the these objections, as Shc had not ineeting. He furfher submits thgtj motion was drawn by fhe Aanexure F^5 and perusal ofsamiei ao objectkm regardmg non-issuai nieetuig or abductioa of soiae of at this stE^e the petitioner is not ec Having hcard lcaracd the relevant doGuinents. Sub-rute (3) of Rule 3 of recewing the rwtice af no confiden shdllfixed tKe da.ie, (nne andpfeioej wtecft shaS fwt be nwne thcinjvftei counslel *hhsiyi^"i •wrf'ii&iSidssgifs^ ••^:y,<.1 •^'.^m•^a?'''''%': tiiandatoiy, wtuch has aot teeen ijceediags have become iUg^I aad set-aside on this score aloius. Thes ^-'- . ... ••' '••"'•• '•:• •'.' •..-. • -:;' Scsr ihfi petidoner is tfaat titoee jof thc Panchas wcre abductcd, in a &ir naattBer and on this to besetaside. ; |oimsel for the respondaaLts aiyied for thei.petitioiier are of no the Panchas had participaied itt talcen place andtliereater, jpetitioner is not entitled to latee these objectiriiis at the time of fhe proccediags of no cojifidence ^ijaufhority, whichis evldent fixwn 1reveals that at thc tuae of meetmg bf notice before seven davs bf Panclias was Saised. I'hdc&ie, Ititted to raise such Objectforis. for fhc partics, I havc perused conAsel atid liAble cotnsel thatyi bfca rsfised •'^^s -'tt- -.. -^ .^' prescrib^ij aufhority, -issua4ce tfie 'erdBe fliules of 1994 euvisagea Itoat 'pn motion (he prescnbed duthority ywthemeeting ofGrainPcmcfiayat, dciys fivm, the dcite afreceipt'of 'e<n {S£SW—fSi7S —^20BC—XSW. -F '3^ **is<4i<yi<<,ywl't-i'Ko, ft<fli+i'Iy, 3(I^5T''^S (t?^^) an^Wft'lR? ^qi 3ffl^ff si**)!^ ^> .^Wl^ i^aiW *i^a <MI^T -I the siud rwtioe. rioe qfsy<ftm^e(mgsjpe<^i/m0(he<te(e,^^)ieand plaae thereof shall be caused to f>e dispalched tfy hhri llwiSughfhe Secrelary of tke Grcam. Pcm^uxya^ ar CHef Executive Offi<»r, (3mm. Panchayat to every member of (h^ before ihe meeting.' Perusal ofaotice (AnnexuEG t>.-2) reveals that mitially notice was issued on 27.8.2002 wlicieby ,ti|ie meeting fer duscussicni on.no confidence motion was fixai for 9 Paachayat Bhawan, Godam, thu; dcspatched bcfore scvcn days fi<|m th.c date ofmcctiag. Howcvcr, fP-3), wtuch was despatched oa vidc aaotUer notlce (Amiexure 3.9.2003, the place pf meetiag second notice (Annexure P-3) w^) ofthe meeting, bu.titwas despa^jljied beforesix days ofmeeting. ..:'t{ (Annexure P-2) was desptachied 14 Bhulia DewanRaa Vs. State of M.P1 q*l<^«tl»l*V^V&^ fe^t ^^tRi^^R^T Pcmchaycct concemed seven days 9.2002 at 11.00 a.m. in fhe Gram it is,- clear that thls notice was |?as ctiaaged. It 1s true fhat tUe not despatehed befca'e seven days Now fhc qucstion is whefh!e|f^lus amouuts to ncm-ccanplancc ofSub-rute (3) of Rule 3. In my ^pmion, in the first mstEin.ce nQtice all fhe Pauchas aitd SaTpaacIl df Gram Panchayat be&re seven d^s 6fthe ineetiajg and vide nptice Annexure P-3 only fhe place of i4eeting was changed. Therefore, it csaxsot bc hcld fhat fhe rcqutrciuejit of sub-rute (3) was not coiaplicd wlfti, as the notice (Annexurc P-12) was already deapatcfaed beforc seven days from the dateofmee^Eng. Even ottierwise, as has been held by the FuU. Benctt of High C|burt bf M.P. ia fhe matter of Smt. & otheTS fhat even ia case ofnon- conipUaacc offhc mandatoiy provjisJDns, thc court 1s cntifled to look OtySJ—FS/7fi—3/20CK-50.000. ?^'?^ra?TZT, ®Ti)y*as,fadij9y<. + aaiST 'TOW <'^^S^); ai^iw^w w»<Hr^ff«>-*-ipD ^[iBiflT tifto '&fl^ mto the fact whetfaer on accouni serious prejudice to tlie affecte^ resulted inaay failuic ofjustice. In the present case, if we procceding of thc incctnig shows the meeting. Further perusal petttioner aad other panchas wei the no eoTifirlence inotion aad col4 thatone SluiVedraiuSahu spoke) whcreas the pctitioncr hcrein motiou, but no pbjcction was regarding the poiat that notice ha^ fixim the date ofineetmRiblll 'a: eaused to lierr^hts.^ tsl In vicw of fhc abovc ^ participated In the meetmg, eveiy| or ^aiast the no cbnfidence objection regardjag despatch of was raised by fbe petitioner, I sa^ has aot bccn abte to estabUsh fh^t to her on account of dcspatoh of whereby the place ofmeetmg was ^: Now coniiTig to tfae sccoiuf ^ Ineeting soine Panchaas were aB^ submitted fhat to this cfifect afiBIB flti^ii^Ffi^ ai^i<!'ff^f ^yi^ 'ite'?^P? sn^ff^ of yie noa-couipBance caused-a ofBce^ bearer or otheiwise 7isaa ^aok into the &cts aiKl.peruSat of Ithat all the 12 inciiibcrs attended; ()f proceedings reveals at^ the^ given OCTortuaitaes to speafcOit )h|ina Nb;5 ofthe proceedings sfaows |ia faveiur of ao coafidence iaotk>n, jpokB against thc no confidcricc ^ raised by the petitioner herein not been despatelied liefttfe seyen on accouat of fhat asy prejudice / '•• ^' : : • '" . . '''• ':' ;&, sincc all thc Panchas ^ me was aUowcd to speak ia fevour ajoifion and: at that time no-sych ii|otice befbrc seven days of mieeting ^ of tfae opinion that fhe^petitk>aer^ any serious prejudice was caused notfce AjEinexure P-3 on 3,9.2002 ifaanged. lUestion that threc d^s befbre ,ffie lucted. Counsel fta- the petitaoaer ; lavit of one Paiich Saear Bai B,aa2 K s :-'"r' ::''^'' •••^ SSSsSSSSti »® III ill^i:.: :'::^1^1^11^~^^ '3^.*<fl<ttct«,'sretiwts, RRii'y^ *ffi* HW»t|l«(t 300 s^'Siyffit^ff Wtai^?®SiRt(F» "f/r" '•t.'^ v. Roshan/- vssesc^S^t sf^s -•s'4 been ffled (Annexure P-4), But, that no such objection was inceting that thiee days prior t< abducted and ou account of votes iu aecordancc with thcir opmion tfaat at fhls belated stagi rateed. In fhe result, I do not finrl is liable to be dismissed and itis, raiied whlch |agaia perusal <rf procecda^ showa by fhe petifiODer tiiereia^ ia ttoe t fhe meeting soinie pancBaas^viwBBi '(bcy •vsete not able to Gasl;;•theu' ifrec will. Thercfore,' I ani of tba filiis pouiteaxuiot be altowedAto^^^ti^ |(ny substance iu tUis i»titlon,?sfflae| laccordingty, disaissed^ 'tt^riwft'tiiwaE'^l^^^ gR? ^^R^t^ri^- ^ ^ Sd/- LC.Bhadpo - Judge .a Gt;PRI—F&78—?f2QO( —50^100