§KWu C)y[ bk @2 @- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR WRIT PETITION 5.12. §T5T/ 2006 PETITIONER: Smt. Manorama Yadav,/ W/o Shri Poonaram Yadav, Gram Panchayat Kasauda, Tehsil Gunderdehi District Durg, (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, / 'Through‘Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya Raipur, C.G. B.C. Sahu, Presiding Officer, Gramxi Panchayat Kasauda, Tehsii Gunderdehi District Durg, (C.G.) ’ RESPONDENTS: Specified Officer, r Sub Divisional Officer Patan, Narendra Nishad S/o Ramadhin ,l Aged about 38 years, Up Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kasauda, Narmada Nishad S/o Deenu Aged about 38 years, Panch Ward No.1, Gram Panchayat Kasauda, Shiv Kumar Thakur, S/o Udhawa. Singh Aged Abour 35 years, Panch Ward No.2, Gram Panchayat Kasauda Jeewan Lal S/o Rameshar Yadav,“ . Aged about 33 years, Panch, Ward No.3 Gram Panchayat Kasauda, Santosh Shrivas S/o Gendram aged“ About 33 years, Panch, Ward No.4, Gram Panchayat Kasauda, Ganesh Bhaje S/o Toran Bhaje. Aged about 22 years Panch, Ward No. 5 , Gram Panchayat Kasauda, . Smt. Rajkumari Sahu W/o Bhukau. Sahu'Aged about 48 years Panch, Ward No. . 6 , Gram Panchayat Kasauda, 11. Parmanand Sahu S/o Ramprasad Sahu, aged about 33 years, Pach, rd N0. 7 , Gram < , n Wa @@, Panchayat Ka$auda, Sarswati Sahu W/o Khorbahara / Sahu, aged about 35 years, Panch, Ward No. 8 , Gram Panchayat Kasauda, Nainkunwar W/o Krishna Prasad x aged about 55 years, Usha Bai W/o Khem Nishad, Aged about 25 years 15. Daulal Kothari, S/o not known,r’ aged about 50 years, 16. Smt. Uarvashi W/o Kanjulal, aged about 35 years 17. Paras Ram Thakur, S/o SukhulaL Aged about 36 year's 18. Radha Bai W/o Etwari aged aboutd 35 years 19. Prabhadevi Thakur W/o Toran, Tahkur, 20. Mangal Das Chaturvedi S/o Not known, aged about 65 years i x » r 21. aged Sushil ab Soni ut 36 S/o years, Thakur (KawaNyEA/f/‘VO‘IS’ Ram Soni, bit-J; C.G. .. giw/iié72’: w M E g/d/ «7.2m pANcmyAr KAumA ma wwwamz 22. Additional Collector, District Burg,” yrsmpr/Rsg WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 27 OF THE 2 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. / , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR $INGLE BENCH : HON’BLE MR. SATisH K. AGNiHGTRl, J. The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kasaunda! Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg. A proposal for no confidence motion was moved against the petitioner with prior notice on 13-6-2006. There were 21 members in the Gram Panchayat Kasaunda, inciuding the petitioner. Ali the members, inciuding the petitioner, were present and participated in the meeting held on 13-6- 2006. The resolution for no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner by 17 members out of the toml 21 members of the Gram Panchayat in the said meeting dated 13-6-2006 (Annexure P-3). 3 members voted against the no confidence motion and vote of one member was cancelled. WRIT PETITION ((2.) No.5255 OF 2006 Petitioner : Smt. Manorama Yadav versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the petiticner. Mr. Arun Sao. Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 3 and 22. ML P.R.Patankar, counsel for the caveators/respondents No.4 to 21. None appears for respondent No.2. ORDER (Passed on 11‘“ Day of December, 2006) @ 2. The petitioner has fned this petition impugning the order dated 14-8-2006 (Annexure P-2) passed in Panchayat Case No.05/A- 89/2005—06 holding that the resolution for no confidence motion held on 13-6-2006 was vaiid and iegal, and the order dated 14-9-2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Panchayat and Rurai Development, Raipur, wherein the revision was dismissed on the ground that under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, the revision ought to have been preferred to the Director, Panchayat not to the Secretary. Thus, the revision was dismissed as not being maintainable. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the no contidence motion passed against the petitioner in the meeting , dated 13-6-2006 (Annexure P—3) is null‘and void, as the members of the Gram Panchayat Kasaunda were not served with proper notice of the meeting dated 13-6-2006 before the said meeting. The petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity bf hearing to defend his case. The resolution dated 13-6-2006 (Annexure P-3) shows that all the members, including the petitioner, were present and participated in the voting without any protest about notice and the resolution was passed after discussion in the said meeting. 4. Be that as it may, it is admitted that the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority and the no confidence motion against the petitioner was carried out by 17 members out of the total 21 members present. Only 3 members voted against the no confidence motion and vote of one member was cancelled. This Court, in @ Ghanshyam Yadav vs. Rameshwar Sahu and others (Writ Petition No.6774 of 2006, decided on 5-1 2-2006), has held that in the event, the resolution is passed by overwhelming majority, the no confidence motion cannot be deciared null and void. The facts of this case are similar to that of Writ Petition No.6774 of 2006. ln the facts of the present case, it is not necessary to go into the validity of the order dated 14-9-2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh holding that the revision is not maintainable before the Secretary, but the same may be preferred before the Director, Panchayat. 5. Thus, for the above-stated reasons, the writ petition is \M,.__../ dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotr‘i Judge Gopal l