iiiG‘H COU'R‘T‘ OF U HA: ‘T‘i§GARI-i AT Bil ‘ ‘P‘liR ?_"T"T“ _ KER RES ONEENTS T e State of Chhattisgarh and others ' Order post for“ ~2-2008 NHw-‘\~*’rx\rr f a Sdl- Dhirendra Misinj Judge M mun ban-RT ‘z OF ennaTTisGARii AT ‘i- AsPUR writ Pgtmnn {c1 1m.» 513/2993 ’ '2. The Sub-Divisionai Offloer, Mahasemund, Distt, Mahasamund {CG} 3. The Nayab Tahsildar, Mahasamumi, Distt. Mallasamund (CG} Smt. Urmilia Jagat, W/o Mahendra Jagat, Sangnm‘h, Gram Panchayat Jhaiidlameuiya, Dist‘t. Mahasamund (CG) "y. PRESENT: Shri J.A. Lohani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt Adv., for the State. Shxi NLV. Paranjpe, Advocate for the Caveator. uRhER (0l 1-2008} hhiremira Misin’a, J By this writ petition under Article 2‘26 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner who is Panch‘ of Gram Panchavat Jhaikhamaiiva and is currentiy homing the Charge of Up—sarpanch, has impugned the order dated 20th December, 2007 passed in Rev. Case No. 3iAi89 whereby the Coiiector Mahasamunti has allowed the Reference (Panchayat) under Section 91 of Fanchavat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short hereinafter referred to ae the Act) read with Ruie 3 of CG Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Ruies, 1995 (For short hereinafter leferred to as the Rules) and set aside the resolution of no confidence motion dated 13-1 1—2007 by which respondent No. 4 Suit. Uriniia Jagat has been removed from the post of Saipaneh of Grain Panchayat, Jhalkhamariya. ’2. Undisputed facts of the case are that on 29-10—2007, an application for no confidence motion was moved hv 13 Panchas of the Grain Panchayat before the respondent No. 2 against the T’E‘T‘i’T‘IOWERI ‘T‘rilochan Sahu, age 4'7 ysaxs, Sfo Shri I‘LA. Ne. 3 Bhukcu Sahu By phstr Pénchas. éfWard No. 01, at present hoiding post of Up- Sargamch, Gynm Panchayat Jhalkhamaiiya, On behalf of all the 14 others Pagchas of Gram Panchayat Jhalkhamaliya, Rio. Viiiagt‘. Jhalkhamariya, Block — Mahasamund, DiStt. Mahasamund {CG} VER§US RESFGIV‘liEiWT‘Si l. The State of Chhattisgm‘h, through the Collector, Distt. P. ahasz‘unund {CG} {J\ SaxpanCh/‘respondent No. 4. The respondaut No. 3 Naib Tahsi‘ldar, NiahaSamund was appointad presidmg offlcm‘ to conc‘iuct the proceeding of 110 coniidenm motion 011 13—11—2007. In the said meating 12 panchas participated in Tim proceéding and all the 12 Panchas caste their votes in favour of the resoiutiou of no comidence motion against the respondent No. 4. The lesoiution of no confidence moTion was folwarded to the Sub DiViSionai O$Cer, Mahasamund who directed the respondent No. 4 to vacate her ofjice. The reSpondent No. 4 preferred an appeai/‘revision under Section 91 of the Act read with Ruie 3 of the Ruiee and the same was ahowed vide the impugned order dated 20th December, 2007 ofAnneXnre P-l with a finding that Section 21(1) of the Act prescribes that resohltion of no confidence motion can be passed by majm‘ity of not Iess than 314$ of Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than 2] 3m of totai number of Panchasconstituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being. However in the instant case, only 12 Ranchas participated and voted in favour of the resoiution of no confidence motion which is 21‘3‘d of the totai 17 number of Panchas of the Panchayat whereas the necessary number should be more than 2f3t‘& i.e‘ the resoiution could he passed only by minimum number of 13 'Panchas. 3. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag has circulated guidelines plinciples of iaw for three tire Panchayati Raj which has been fried as Annexure VP—5. in the said guidehnes, the number of Panchas necessary for carrying no confidence motion has been elaborated and according to which in a Panchayat having 1'7 Fanchas, minimum number of Panchas necessary for carrying out resoiution of no confidence motion is 12. 4. On the other hand, 1earned counsel for the respondent No. 4 Sarpanch argued that bare reading of Section 21(1) of the Act, it is ciear that the resolution of no confidence motion can be passed by a majority of not iess than ‘2/31'5‘ of the totai Panchas constituting the Grain'Panchayat. in the instant case, though the first condition that the motion shouid be carried out by 3] 4th of the Fanchas present and voting is satisfied, however 2f 3rd of the total number of Panchas in the Panchay'at having 1'7 Panchas comes out to be 11.33 i.e. 1‘2 Panchas and, therefore, minimum number of Panchas for carrying . A out msoiution of no contidsnce motion wili ba more than 2/‘31'51 i.e. more than 12, however oniy i2 Panchas havc voted in favour of the resoiution of no confléonce motion. Themfore, second conomon 13 not satisiied. Reliance is piacai on $mt. Abha patei —-v- State of "'hhattisgar‘n and othersi. U! i havo heard learned counSei for the parties. 6. it is not 1'11 dispute that 1‘2 Panchas participated and voted out of totai 1'7 PanchaS in the meeting convened for consideration of no confidence motion against the respondent No. 4 and 311 of them voted in favour of the resointion. Two third of 1'7 Panchas is 1 1.33 which is iess than 12 Panchas who participaied and voted in favour of The insoiution and thus second condition under Section 21(1) of the Act fhat the resolution of no confidence motion can be passed by a majoritv of not less than 2i 31ft of total Panchas constituting the Gram Panchavat is also satisfied. The argument advanced by lealned counsel for the respondent No. 4 that 2] 31d of 17 works out at 1 1.38 which can be rounded up to i2, and Section 21(1) mandates that resolution must be carried out with the majority of not less than 2I31‘d of the total Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the no confidence motion can he carried out oniy when i3 Panchas voted in favour of the resolution is irrational and is based on inconect inteipietation of Section ‘2 H1) of the Act. '7. ln the matter of Smt. Ahha f’ateli also, the totai number of Panchas in that case was 13, nine number of Panchas were present and caste their votes, in para 9 it has been held that 2j3i‘i of 13 is 8.66, 9 Panchas were present and thus, quorum was compiete for consideration of no confidence motion and the judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent does not support his case. According to the opinion of this Court, the guidelines of Annexure P-S circulated by Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag of respondent No. l is based on correct understanding of Section 21(1) of the Act and the order of Collector that in a Panchavat of 17 Panchas, more than ‘2] Sui means minimum 13 Panchas and, therefore, the requirement of 2f31‘d has not been satisfied as the resolution of no confidence motion was i h.400 H( J\4) umrH in "r‘ i 2G \pGj' In \ y”r Mr a” ,9 ~ <@ cauis'd in? only 12 Panchass is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Section 2H1) 0f the Act and the s sustainEd. ame cannot be 8. in the msult, tha petition is aliow‘ed. The 01Ti6r of Annexurc P-i passed by the Colioctor 1's Set asido anci tho order of Presiding Officer cieckuiug filo no confldence motion against tho respondent No. 4 Sarpauch as caniod out is uphoki. 9. T116 petition succeeds. Dhirendra Misi'ujjad Judge I