Smt. Punimati W/o Shri Puniram Sonwani, Agsd about 48 years, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Paraskol, Tahsil— Sarangarh, District— Raigarh, R/o Village & Post Paraskol, Tahsil- Sarangarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 4&4” /2011 gingh Bench PETITIONER VERSUS s RESPONDENTS. l . State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchyat and welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) The Collector Raigarh District— Raigarh (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh ,Tahsil— Sarangarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.), Tehsildar Sarangarh, Tahsil— Sarangarh, Distt— Raigarh (C.G.) Shreernati, Panch, Ward No.1 Vrinda Kumari, Panch, Ward No.2 Kunti Bai , Panch, Ward No.3 Sahetareen, Panch, Ward No.4 Jagatrarn, Panch, Ward No.5 Shyam Bai, Panch, Ward No.6 Milan Bai, Panch, Ward No.7 Shatrughan, Panch, Ward No.8 Ghasiya. Panch, Ward No.9 10. ll. 12. 13. W 1%A é @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ 71 @ 14. Karma Bai, Panch, Ward No.10 15. Ram Gopal, Panch, Ward No.11 16. Dasrath, Panch, Ward No.12 Respondents No. 5 to 16 are R/o Village 85 Post Paraskol, Tahsil- Sarangarh, Distt— Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE g2” OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. \N ; 4m H23?! CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (C) NO. 6284 SF 2011 (Writ Peiiiion under Artic§a 228 of the Canstkution 0f india‘) Singie Bensh : Hcn’bke 55hr? Satish K” Agnihatri, J. Presem :- 5hr: HSF’aiei, Advocate for ihe pe‘iitioner. $hri V.V.S.Murthv‘ 3v, Advocate Genera§ for the State. ORDER (Paaed an this 20‘“ day sf October, 201 1) Chaiéenge in :his petition is i0 the order dated 13m Qctober, 2011 (Annexure $34), whereby. the apbiication of the petiiioner under Section 21(4) Gf "me Chhat‘tisgarh Panchavai Rai Adhiniyam‘ 1993, before the Additiona§ CoHector, was dismissed. }f\ The facts, in brief, as pmjected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was a duly elected Sarpanc‘n of Gram Panchayat Paraekoi, Tahsii Sarangarh, District Raigarh. The members of Gram Panchayat sent a noiice to the prescribed authority to fnove no confidence motion against the petitioner under Rule 3(1) or’ the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Saroanch Tatha Uo~SarOancn Janapad Panchavat Tatha Ziia Panchavat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam: 19% (for ehor! ”the Niyam”). The case was registered on 23m September, 2011. LO According to the iearned oounsei for the petitioner, on the same date, on satisfying, the Sub Divisionai Otticer (Revenue), hetd that the applicants have submitted the notice in the orescribed form statino therein that they are members of the Gram Panchaya‘t. Acoordingiy, the prescribed officer, appointed Shit A.K.Lakda, Tahsiidar. as presiding officer for initiating a no confidence motion against the petitioner. xwmwmumtmemmmmmmmu )m E PETiTi‘GNER 53m . Pummaii \v iersus RESPGNDENT$ Sims: of Chhattisaarh & Cthers 33 Eh 4. After having coiiected al! the requisite information vide order daied 24 September, 2011 (Annexure P-5), Shri Lakda: Tahsildar was appointed as presiding officer under Section 11 of the Act. There is no grievance with regard to other requirements ie verification, issue of notice, showcause notice within the specified iime, except that a certificate stating the date at which the notice was given to the prescribed authority under sub-rule (2) of Ruie 3 was not issued. The petitioner participated in the proceeding held on 5"" October, 2011. in the proceeding, out of 13 office bearers, present in the meeting, 12 office bearers voted in favour of the no confidence motion. as is evident from the notice dated 07‘“ October, 2011 (Annexure P-2;. it is not pointed out or established that the issue of non-issuance of certificate in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, was ever agitated either before initiation of the no confidence motion proceeding or thereafter, and as such, it cannot be held as fatal so as to declare the no confidence motion against the petitioner as badi at this stage. This Court in the case of Ghanshyam Yadav v. Rameshwar Sahu and Cthers (WP No.6744 of 2006), decided on 5.12.2007 {2007(2) BLJ 181], heid that no prejudice, whatsoever is caused in any manner when the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority. Thus, no-confidence motion cannot be declared as null and void. in the present case, the position is the same as out of 13 members, two-third of the members constituting Panchayat were present and cast their votes. 12 votes, more than three-fourth of the members present and cast their votes in favour of no—confidence motion. The aforesaid decision in Ghanshyam Yadav (supra) was referred with approvai in Abha Patel {Smt.) v. State of Chhattisgarh (2008 (1) BLJ 87). in View of foregoing, there is no merit in this case, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sdl- SATISH K. ANGNIHOTRI Judge