H1GH COIW%T OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 6462 of 2006 ^F^ ll-I}-f, Petitioner Paras Ram Sahu, aged about 61 years, son of Shri indel @ Lattl Ram Sahu, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kuan Tahai Nawagarh, Distnct Durg (CG). Respondents Versus 1. State of Chftattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Social Weifare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Additional Cottector, Bemetara, Di^riclDurg (CG). 3. Smt. Munni Bai, w/o. Shri Sahorik Sahu, Up Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kuan, Tahsii Nawagarh, Disirict Durg (CG). 4. Bharat Sahu son of Shri Bhakla Sahu, Gram Panchayat, Kuan, Tahsi! Nawagarh, District Durg (CG). 5. Smt. Sumitra widow of Late Shri Sitaram Sahu, Gram Panchayat, Kuan, Tahsi! Nawagarh, District Durg (CG). 6. Dilip son of Shri Dwarika Dhruv, Gram Panchayat Kuan, Tahsit Nawagarh, Disirict Durg (CG). 7. Ferhin Bai wife of Shri Santram Dhruv, Grara Panchayat Kuan, Tahsi Nawagarh, District Durg (CG). 8. Mitan Khare. son of Shri Antu Khars. VilSage Mungvoy, Tahsi! Nawagarh, District Durg (CG). 9. Ganesh Nishad son pf Shri Pilu Nishad, village Mungvoy, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (CG). 10. Shailesh Pandey, son of Shri Jawahar Pandey, village Mungvoy, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (CG). 11. Kashi Ram Sahu, Son of Shri Bhagat Ram Sahu, Gram Panchayat Kuan, Tahsii Nawagarh, Distriet Durg (CQ). .,<s-; s*>a -2.- t g ji & . ~v;e< s ^l.s^J? '^esS^l-^' "]u?^°BSES?isr" 12. Shriram son of Shri Kunj Ram Sahu, Gram Panchayat Kuan, Tahsi! Nawagarh, District Durg (OG). 13. B.L. Thakur, Prescribsd Authority and Sub Divteionai Officer (Revsnue), Bemetara, Districf Durg (CG). 14. M.R. Komarya, Tahsitdar and Presiding Officer, Nawagarh, District Durg (CG). (Writ Petition under Articte 226/227 of Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Aanihofri, J. Present: Mr. P.P. Sahu, counse! for the petittener. Mr. Vinay Harit, Deputy Advoc^e General wlth Mr. Bhaskar Payasi.Panei Lawyer for the respondente No. 1 and 21 State. Mr. Rajsev Shrivastava, counsel for th®rsspondent No.3. Mr. S.K. Tiwari, counsei for the respondents No. 6 to 12. (Passed on this 11 day of November, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 15-11-2006 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Coitector, Bemetara, in Case No. 36-C/144/2005-06, whereby the decision of the Presiding Officer was quashed v/herein it v/as held by the Presidifig OfRcer that the 'no confidence motion' was not carried out. 2) The indisputabie facts, in nutsheil, as projecteci by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kaun, Tahsi! Nawagarh, District Durg and 'no confidence raotion' was brought against the petitioner on 6-7-2006, after foliowmg due procedure as required to initiate no confidence motion. According to the petifioner, oniy seven persons voted in favour of the motion and three persons voted against the motion and one was dectared invalid by the Presiding Officer. The requirement 3/4th of the total members present voting in favour No Confidence [yiotien would be 8.35 as total numbers of members present were11. Even if one vote is taken in favour of the no confidence modon, ...^,- ^>tf"'<"' S fi 's S 'SA-.. '^.i^-^*-. 1 i'm% ;"\ %. B1 ^ the tota! membws would be 8 i.e., fess than 8.35. Therefore, thn finding of the Presiding OfRcer that motion was not carried out, was correct. The order passed by the Additional Collector cannot sustain on the sknpte ground that the requirement of tew is 3/4th of the total persons present In the proceedings and voted in favour of the 'no confldenee motton' to hold that the motion has been carried out. 3) i have heard tearned counsel for the parties, perused the pteadings and documents appended thereto. 4) The AddBiona! Collector proceeded on Vhs tesis that if 2/3"' members present have voted in favour of th®'no confidence motion', the same may be treated as the motion has been carriec! out. The flnding of the Additional Collector is cortrary to the provisions of Seetion 21 (1) of ttie CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1893 (for short, "the Adhiniyam 1993"). 5) Section 21 (1) ofthe Adhiniyam 1993 reads as under: "21. No<:onfidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch." (1) On a motton of no-confidence beirtg passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not fess than three fouith of the panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, ths Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whoni such motion is passed, shai! ceased to hold office forthwith." 6) Thus, the order passed by the Additional Coliecior is not sustainable in iaw and is quashed. The order dated 6-7-2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Presidir^ Officer for no confidence nwtion is confirmsd. 7) Accordingiy, the petition is aiiowed, No orter aste eosts. Raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge