^ '^S) HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH M' BILASPUR W.P. ?Q No. 3262 of 2007 Petitioner Smt. ?«1eena Singh (Sarpanch) Wifc of Sliri Kamal Singh, s^cd about 27 years, Caste Gond, Resident of Vffl^e Girvarga&i, Folice Station aud 'l'ahsil Surajpur, District Suiguja (C.G.) Vcrsus Respondents 1. State of Chliattisgarh, Through.: The Secretary, Department of Fanchayat aad Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The CoUector, Ambikapur, District Siirguja (C.G.). 3. The Sub Divisioual Officer (Prescribed Aufhority), Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). 4. 'l'he 'l'ahsildar (Presidmg Officer), SuTEgpur, District.Surguja(C.G.). 5. Smt. Kaushilya Bai Wife of Shri Dbaraiajeet, Caste Gond, aged about 35 ycars, l-'axich; 6. Keshwar Prasad Son ot' Shri Janld Rat&, Caste Rajwar, aged about 35 ycars, 1'anch; 7. Smt. Fulkmn"ar Wife of Shri Parsadhu, Caste Rajwar, aged about 50 ycars, 1'auch; 8. Smt. Budhiyaro Wife of Shri Haribhajaa, Caste Rajwar, aged about 55 years, Fanch; 9. Sait. Shyama Bai Wife of Shri. Mohabbat Rami, Caste Pauika, aged about. 35 years, Panch; 10. Smt. Yasfaoda Kaui Wifc of Shri Somarsai, Caste Rajwar, aged about 27 ycars, Pauch; 11. Smt. Sumti Wife of Stari Somaroo, Caste Ghansiya, aged about 40 ycars, 1'anch; 12. Ramdular Son oi" Shri Bemram, Caste Rajwar, age& about 35 years, Paach.; 13. Prabhuram Son of Shri Atibal, Caste Paaika, aged about 35 years, t'aach; l/i, Aaaad Siagh Son of Shri Mausai, Caste Qond, aged about 35 years, Pauch; 15. 'l'ara Singh Hon of Siui Uuhaa Siagh, Caste Qond, a&ed about 40 years, Paach; (^ 16. Moharial Son of Shri Budhhia, Caste Uond, a^cd about 37 ycars, Panch; 17. Shwshantear Son of Shri Buddhu, Caste Kajwar, agcd about 50 years, Paach; 18, Rreinsai Son of Shri Shivbhajan Caste Kajwar, aged about 38 yeacs, Paach; 19. Smt. Sushma Wife of Shri Goutam Prasad, Caste Rajwar, agcd about 25 ycars, 1'aach; 20. Rainkripal Son of Shri DaUu, Caste Rajwar, aged about 50 years, tjancfa; 21. Sm.t. Uddheshwan Wife of Shri .Jaisai, Caste Rafwar, aged about 40 years, Panch; '22. Smt. Kanti Bai Wifc of Shri Mukdeo, Caste Qond,aged about /15 years, Panch; 23. LaUuram Son of Shri Ubar Sai, Caste Rajwar, aged about 40 ycars, 1'auch; 24. Gharbharan Son ot' Sbri Soinarsai, Caste Gond, aged about 30 years, Pauch; Tfae respondeat No. ^l to 2^! are residents of viilage Girvai^anj, PoUce Station and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surgiya (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UHDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF IHDIA 8B: Hon'blc Shri gatish K. AgRihotri, J. Shri Asfaok Kumar Shulda, Advocate for the petitktner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 4. ORDER ( Rasaed on is (vth day ofA-.lgiist, 2007} 1. The petitioner, who was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Guvarganj, Tabsil Surajpur, District Suiguja, has filcd this petition, against fhe order dated lS.5.2007(Annexure P/l) passed by fhe Additional Collector, Saiyija, whereby fhe 'no con&lence' motion held on 24.2.2007 against fhe petitioner was ^Sii^iii^SiiSSS^^^^^^^S '^'^^^i'^^^^^SlS^Si^^^ 3 approved. The solc attegation of the petitioner is fhat fhe vote of 'ng. eonfidence' laotion was passed vvithout affoniing an opportiuiity ofhearing to the pctitioner to reply to fhe aUegations made against iLiin. 2. On perusal ofthe pToceedings dated 24.2.2007 (Aiuiexure P/6) it is found that the petitioner was given sufficient opportuaity to put forward hiis case as is evident fiora the recording of the proceedings. Learaed counsel for the petitioner docs not question about the presence ofthe sufHcient number ofvotes aad passing of ttiB 'no coTifidcnce' motion by 3/4til meinhers prRsent anri voted m the 'no confidence' inotion. 3. I have gone through the onler dated 18.5.3007 acd lieard leamed couasel for the petitioner. I do aot find any HTegularily or iUegality in the impugned order warrantuig interference by ttiis Court under Article 226 offhe Constifciition oflndia. 4. Be that as it may, it is admitted fhaf. the resolution was passed by overwhelming majorily and the no con&leiice motioh against tlie petitioner was carried out by 15 meiabers out of ttie total 19 mcmbcrs prcscnt aad votcd. This Co-i.irt in ©hansiiyaaaYadav Vs. Rameslswar §aha aad otliers fA'rit Pctition No. 6774 of 2006, decided oa 5.12.2006) has held that in the event, fhe resohition is passed by overwtielming niajority, the no confidence niotion caruiot be declared as null and void. . For fhe above-stated reasons, fhe writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur