fetaaif. ttti 2,5^^8•i-B- ./,/ ^ / ' C r^/^, T^ XN THE HIGH COUdT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.AfC ) NO. (38^4/2006 PETITIONER:- ^^ .^. ^^^ ^:..^-0- ^ ^^ ';^ ^ t.0 Smt. Phagni Bai Awade^ W/o.- Pawan Kumar Awade, Aged about 40 years, Sarpanch, R/o. Gram Panchayat Akolikala, Viltage Lingiyadih, Post Chhatera, Tahsil Arang District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS:- ^^ ^:^--' .^^s^"" ^^ <} .^'^ ^0""'.^''??? •?>^-<^' ^" <?<u' A.--'" ^ ..., 1) State of Chhattisgarh/ Through:- Secretary Ministry of Panchayat and Welfare Department, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) Sub Divisional Officer Raipur (C.G.) ^ww^ vQ^ 3) Chief Executive Officer,^ Tahsil Arah^, District Raipur (C.G.) 4) Up Sarpanch/ Gngrn P^nchayatAkolikala, Tansil Ar^0, District Raipur (C/.G.) 5) tHfe Collector, RaipUt-.-" Distt- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^s- Kt6H COURT OF CHHATTE56ARH AT BD-ASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 6824 of 2006 Petitioner Smt. Phagni Bai Awade Versus Respondents 5tate of Chhattisgarh & others Singte Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Shri Y.C. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Deput/ Advocate Seneral for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 5/5tate. O R D ER (Passed on 7th cfay of December, 2006) The following order of the Court wos passed by Satish K. Agnihotri. J. 1. The petitioner was elected Sarptmch of 6ram Ponchoiyat Akolikala, Tohsil Arong, District Raipur (C.G.). A proposal for no confiden<» motion was moved against the petitioner with prior notice on 21.4.2006. The motion was passed against -t+ie petitioner by 12 members out of 15 members of the 6ram Ponchaynt. 3 members voted in favour of the petitioner, in the meeting dated 21.4.2(X)6. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order of the Collector dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure P/l), wherein the Collector has held that the Tahsilckir ond Nayab Tahsitdar are Revenue Officers, as such, it cannot be held that the meetin9 vws not presided over by the person who was authorized by -the specified officer i.e. 5ub-t>ivisional Officer, Raipur. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for -the petitioner submits that the no confidence motion is null and void as the same was not presided over by a person who was authorized by the specified officer. The Nayab Tahsilctar, who mcy be tevenue Officer, but was not authorized officer by the qiecift'ed officer. 3. Be that as it may, it is admitted 1+iat the resokition was passed by overwhelming majority ond the no confidence motion against the petitioner was carried out by 12 votes against 3 votes. This Court in Shanshyam yadav vs. Rameshwar Sahu & others (W.P. No. 6774 of 2006) has held that in the event, -the resolution is passed by overwhelming majority, the no confidence motion cannot be declared nutl and vide. The facts of this case. are similar to that of W.P. No. 6774 of 2006. 4. Thus, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge SAhash 'T