SK. /i^: sf/ ^^•^^)7'^:'S^t^^^1"^^ ^^^^^s^^^^^^ ^ V ^i^ PETITIONER ..-•• ..<»*'"\ l(.l...- ^^•"^-y"" RESPONDENTS LNTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.') WRIT PETITLON N0.25e©QF 2006 '..S'lVK-i''' •.J-""''^ (•'••"" ^A2^f-i;....^"' ^<^--"" < <^Punaram Verma Son pf Shri Dukalu Verma, aged about 38 years, Resident of Village Khairjhiti, Post Morenga, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS 1. The Collector, District Durg, (C.G.). 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Bemetara, District Durg, (C.G.). 3. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). Gram Panchayat, Khairjhiti, Through: The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Khairjhiti, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). ^" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1950 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRrUN THE NATURE_ OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR APPROPRIATE ORDER/ORDERS. DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS. 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As per the cause title. XI-HC-78 73C ^Wm-il, ^WKa, KlV\Wjf. *)I*IMI aiw^i CTq;200 XI-HC-78 sn^T^T^iNi (WT 3(1^1 AKJ* *ii*ini awi^» 7S( '^W\v\t{, VS-^WW, (s|cll<rl^< ^ ^m^^a^ 200 Sii^i'i 4si«n('i^i^iyT) ?TcireKBfeT3TI^T 26-S-2006:- Shri P.P. Sahu, counset Shri N.K. Agrawal, Deputy] on advance copy. By the instant petition, the correctness of the order dated 2C Bemetara, whereby the Additional| petitioner herein under Section 21| Adhiniyam, 1993 against no confic|< in the meeting of Panchas and Saj The main grievance raise<fl respondent No.2, the prescribed fixed the date of meeting of no appointed Shri S. Lakra, Chief Tha petitioner came to know aboi( confidence motion to be held on| before respondent No.1 in whicl|i beyond the prescribed time as pe) time and 7 days clear notice on th^ I have heard learned coun< Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, President Tatha Vice President envisages that on receiving the| authority shall satisfy himself abou( satisfied, he shall fix the date, Panchayat which shali not be moi)i the said notice. The notice of ....../^^- — •1 -— -' +i<<id<fl.i •<it<<?fTfffel<f) <Rf<<i< ^isri^Tsn^r for|the petflioner. |Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 2, Ipetitioner has questioned legality, validity and !p-5-2006 passed bythe Additional Collector, [Collector rejected the reforence made by the (4) ofthe Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj ^ence motion dated 2nd Maroh2006 carried dut fpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kherjh'rti. by the petitioner in this wrrt petition is that 4uthority, vide order dated 20 February 2006, cdnfidence motion as 2 Mareh 2006 and also Ex^cutive Officer, Bemetara as presiding officer. itiegal'rty as well as the date of meeting of no 12-3-2006, therefore, he preferred an appeal he mentioned that the meeting was fixed the Rule i.e. 15 days beyond the prescribed petitioner was not served. >el for the petitioner and perused the record. Cfihattisgarh Panchayai (Gram Panchayat Ke Jjanpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke |Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 notice under sub-rule (1) the prescribed : the admissibility ofthe notice. On being thus titne and place for the meeting of the Gram than fifteen days from the date of rece'ipt of sud^ meeting specitying the date.time and place XI-HC-78 sn^r^Tf^TR; (PTT 3)1^1 sh1 / Ban/e y. ^'y TS? "Ill'i<lcl<l, (?Tf1«'l6, RlMldy *11+1MI Sh+lltb ¥n; 200 w^w<h (yt^sy) OTgraTHfN'sn^T '"c^- thereof shall be caused to be Gram Panchayat to every mem| before Ihe meeting. Perusal of issued on 20th February 2006 therefore, from the above fact, it i< 7 days before the date of the petitioner has rightiy been rejecte{ Moreover, the petitioner in which Panchas and the petitior) hearing allconcerned, no confid^ signatures of the petitioner, his right. Moreover, nothing has t| of that prejudice was caused to thf Now, coming to the before the Additional Collector, fixed beyond 15 days, it shows given on 16-2-2006 and the me] month of February being 28 days| days and this ground raised in Ihi^ of the petitioner has no merit, dismissed, in limine. No costs. Consequently, M.(W.)P. N( de|spatched hitnself therefbre secohd that *i'I<F<-f''fl-i tiiti<-tTfftst<3 <Ritdi<. ^)3Tf^iT3n^?r by him through the Secretary of the )er of the Panchayat concerned seven days |he impugned order reveals that notices were and meeting was fixed on 2nd March 2006, established that the notices were despatched ifneeting. Therefore, the point raised by the by the Additional Collector, Bemetara. participated in the no confidence motion )er were given opportunities to speak and after snce motion was carried out which bears the i, the petitioner, even otherwise, has waived ^een mentioned in the petition that on account i^ petitioner. point, even though same was not raised has been mentioned that the meeting was notices ofthe no confidence motion was slsting was fixed on 2nd March 2006, thereby |month, the meeting was very much within 15 petition has no merit. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby sahne .2280/2006 stands disposed of, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge