^s' f^\N^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. ^°)2^^ /2003 . PETITIONER MaUcham, Aged about 55 years S/o Fakira Jangade, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Thakurtola Tah. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1^1. r-"^ .V3%<§^*~ .^^"^ ^-^' ^ ". ^ .Ap \\ =rTV il > n The State of Chhattisgarh Through Sub-Divisional Officer Dongargarh Distt. Rajnandgaon The Collector Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Shivendra Singh, S/o. Jivan Singh Up-Sarpanch, Thakurtola, Tah. Dongargarh Dista-ict Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. F -^- XI-HC.22 %^T^l t^i 'yit^ct •te/ •^^•^pn^pq^ "g^pl^, i^<ytt^y 3TI^T "q^? ^f ^'591 r^iN?-Y-'-*l"":?s"M"";-1"-"M 2WQ *^^T" •® WWtT 5b^((<^ ^i¥['^[TW^ft^ vpas fllin; 06.12.20P3 Shxi Parag Kotecha, counsj Shri Ranbu- Singh, Govt, Ajdvc Heard both the counsel, By tiiis writ petition undei| of India the petitioner who Thakurtola, TehsU Dongergar^ challenged fhc order dated 09.0^ Collector, Rajnmidgaon m Case] leaiTied CoUector has dismissed 1|1 The brief facts leaduig to petitioner is aa elected Sai'paiicl|i Tah.. Dongergarh Distt. Rajnaiid| Paiichavat Thakurtola to.foiTnedl Di^isional Ofiicer, Dongergarh oi^ bringiiig 'no confidence inotion' tlie notice tlie Prescribed Autlioiitv couduct the proceediags of no fixed on 25.02.2003 at 12.< Thakurtola aiid all tlie niembei-s receivuig a request froin the petitioner fhat he beiag ill will n<| Prescribcd Authority postpone.d 26.03.2003 at 12.00 noon in the mtimation oftlie same was dfe$ rsieettag uo confidence iaotiGi|L sl for the petitbner. Ajdvocate for the State, <ftl^<flvt *ilH<?ff ^ fe^ I^?R ifc^f^R%^ Article 226/227 of tlie Constitution Sarpanch of Graai Paachayat Distt. Rajnaiidgaon (C.G.) has f.2003 (Annexure P-4) passed by the |No.52-A/89/2002-03 by which tlie pie. dispute offlie petitioner. |lmg of tliis writ petition are ttiat the of tiie Grara Paachayat Thakutola, ^aon, The few m.euibcrs of thc Grani tlie Prescribed Aufh.ority an.d Sub 13.02,2003 ia a prcscribed form for |igaiast fhe petLtioner. On receiving ^ity appoiated a Presiditig Officer to tonfidencc motion aad laeetnig was iiooii HI the Grasii Panchavat werc iiiforQied accordinigly. On offhe Graoi Panch^at i.e. tlie |>t be able to attend tlie meetmg, fhe ^he date aad tune of thc iiieetnig for Gram Paachayat Thakurtola and .^spatchedandon 26.03.2003 in the was talcen up aiid ia which .oD Sarp|aiich ttte -.1 ^ •AKV XI-HC-22 sn^T'^i 'f^IW 31^ ^ -yf^^ -^ -3"^ ^TPTR^, ^^<i<o, fa^^a< 3TI^T '^^ ..^3J...k3. WWtl ^b^liw M 200 •fN^si' snSp?! ^nw^rf^ ^rafepiNw^^ fe^t <^^i< ip3TP<RCT^I out of total 20 laenibei^ had c}ast fheir votes tti favour of fhe 110 coufidence miotion aiid accordia^ly it was held fhat tlie uo conficlence motion has been caj^ied out A^cordmgly, the Prescri.bed Auth.ority removed fhe petitioner from fhe |post of Sarpanch, Gram Paachayat Thakurtola, agahist which tlie tpetitioner moved a dispute under Section 21 (4) offhe Panchayat ^ AppellateAufhorityi.e, flie Additi' vide order dated 09.07.2003 (Ai aj Adhiaiyam, 1993 aad the learaed Diial Collector dismissed tlie dispute ^xure P-4), A veiy lunited poiat has b^en raised in tliis petition aiid tlie pomt i-aised by tlie leanied couns^l for tlie petitioner before tlie Court is fhat Sub-rale (3) of Rule 3 of ^ules, 1994 euvisage tliat uotice of ineetiag specifying tlie date, tinie ^iid place tliereof shaU be caused to be dispatched by him fhrough fh^ Secretan^ of Gram Paiichayat aad to eveiy member of fhe Paiichav4t concenied seven days before tlie inee^tmg aad tlie High Court of JM.P. m fhe case of Smt. Bhulia Dewaagan Vs. State of M.P. |& Othersreported ia 2000(4) M.P.H.T. at Page 69 held that tij (3) ofthe 1994 Riiles arc maadatd e provisioiis of Sub-rule 3 of Rule ry in. natiirc. In this case it is not disputed that mitially tlie Prescnl^ed Autliority fixed tlie meetmg on 25,02.2003 aad notices were dis^ the petitioner inoved an applicatkl •atched on 20/02/2003, however, n before the Preseribed Authority saymg that he is ill, flierefore, 4e wil1 not be able to atteud flie meetiiig, thereforc, fhe Prescribed| Authority' postponed the meeting for 26.03.2003 and for which |lie notices were dispatched on 21,03.2003, tliis has been admitt^d by the leamed counsel for the respondents ia the retuni. ^ -A' XI-HC-22 ^^ ^TR[R:R, ^tii^^Ko, i®l<yis^3< ® ^ww »w^ 3TT^T Xj^^ ..a^.A.aJ.^.. •M 200 ^(<b<^< 31T^T^T l4r(Jch 3?T^T $^+tiGt) 'M%<I ^J ^ ^T^r^iT^^rf^T -3 lu tliese facts fhe clear poj were uot dispatched seven days b^ the inandatoty reciutreiiients of tl ^<^{<r<<ilvt W^i^^S <R»t^« ^T 3lpOT ^I^T sition em-erges 13 that tlie notices :fore tlie ineetio.g as per the second part Qf the Sub-mle (3) ,of the Ru^e (3) of thc Rules 1994, therefore, |e sub-rule was not coBipUed with which even leanied counsel for tl|ie respoucleiits could not dispute. The only pouit raised by fhe leaTiJLed counsel for the respondents is th.at the petitioner has uot pleadeJ of non-conipliance of Sub-rule 3 prejudice has been caused to thc justice has beeii caused. I have perused the petition laentioned ui the petition that on maiidatoiy provisions any serious refeired hercin. above makuig 1 aiid estabUshed fliat on accouiit of Rule 3 of 1994 what seriozis petitioner aad how ftie failure of of the petitiouer, it has uowhere accouut of non-coinpUaiice of tlie prcjudice or failure ofjustice has beeu caused to tlie petitioner. In fjie same judgment, vAich lias been reference of tlie many previous judgBieuts, it has been held that f|ie general rale is fhat a Biatidatoiy provision of law requires strict coi3{ipliaace aad tlie directoiy one only substaa.tial, But even where the ^rovision is Biandatory, every non- compliance of tlie same need not ^iecessaiily result m nuUification of fhe whole action. In a given sittaation even for non-fulfillment of maadatoiy requu'eBient, the authcj xaav refuse to nuUifv tlie action d prejudice has been causcd to fhc ^ which would have aiiv oflier sub^ Irity eisipowered to take a decision ^n the ground tliat no substaatial |arty affected or to any otlier party, ^tantial iiiterest m tlie proceedmg. This Court under Article 227 ofth.4 Constitution has also a discretion iiot to iiiterfere even though a zaaijidatoiy requireiaeiit of law has not^ XI-HC-22 3?I^I'^T ^W^ ^?T ^Hl<=b ^l^a r^s^^v L ^^ ^' ,^v T5? -^HId^, ^WI?, T^w^ 3ilt?T "q^? •qmw^^"-"•"-"-•--"-"•-^ 200 tN^ST' 3li^l ^«ll^T —M <*Hi<rt^'rl ^Wdf^fe^ <r3t<^'< ^a^CTsn^l been stricUy coaiplied with as it^ of justice has been caused. Th( judgznent of High Court of M,P.| established that on account of| provisious of Sub-nile (3) of R| prejxidice or fallure ofjustice has] of fhe saaie no relief can be gr^ 226 f 227 of Constitution of Indial In tlie result tlie petitioue ereby uo serious prejudice or failure ^refore, iti view of tliis FuU Bench fhe petitioner has not pleaded aad non-coBipUaiice of the mandatoiy Itile 3 of Rules 1994 what serious Ibeeu caused to him.. lu the absence [nted to fhe petitioner under Article r has failed to prove aiid estabUsh tliat on accouut of non-compliatice of the maiidatoiy provisions of Sub-mle (3) of Rule 3 ofthe Rul^ failiirc of justice has been caus] pctition is liable to be disniissed ^sid fhe saine is disniissed, s, 1994 what serious prejudice aiid ?d to the petitioner, Therefore, the Consequentiy, M.W.P. No.2 ^87/2003 also staiids disposed oL Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^^fe^ -s"-