c^ /-?-^ |NJ!-IE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHJkT BILASPUR ' WRIT PETITIQN (C) N0. ^tS OF 2011 OTHER MATTER WRIt PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTITUTION QF 1NDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATUREOF CERTIORARI IVIANDAIVIUS, PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE IVIATTER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^^ \^^> r^>1"^"..- (^/•^"x ^^•:"./•''"' A'"'^' ,.••"' ">^ / Smt. Ganga Bai, W/o Shri Premlal Sahi, aged about i(S years, Sarpanch of Gram Panchaycit Madkadi; Block - Bilaigarh, District :- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS i ^\. StateofChhattisgarh,Through:Secretary, , Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar, District-.Raipur(C.G.) , 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh, District- Raipur(C.G.) , / 4. The Tahsildar, Bilaigarh, District—Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5. Mathura BaiW/o Jwala Prasad Chandra, , Up Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Madkadi, ,6. Puran Bai W/o Rameshwar Prasad Manahi, Panch, Village - Madkadi, Gram Panchayat Madkadi, 7. Sumitra Bai W/o Gorelal Kenwat, Panch, Village - Madkadi, i Gram Panchayat Madkadi, ^ y :^^swe^a. -n;E-i!?5:.:IS!illli '!pe^|pei/\| (eAeijoued LueJQ 'einpBuog - e6e||!A 'qoued 'e>|iued - 9}se3 'sepaLULueg o/g SEQ ejpue6oA '91. 'ipe>|pe|/\| }EAeL|3UEd LUEJO 'einpeuog . -96e||i/\'youed '6uiSA!L|S o/g Jeujn»Mi|g ' L\ '!pe>|pei/\| teAeqoued • UIBJQ '!pe>|pe|/\] - e6e||!A 'L|aued 'i|9i - 9}SBO 'ieitEjeijg O/M 'ieg |0oqd •91. '!pe>|pe|A| )eAe43ued U.JEJ3 '!pe^pei/\| - e6e||!A 'qoued '}eMU9>f - .91SB3 '|B|9LULU8S 0//V\ wef •91. '!pe>|pe[/\| )eAeL|ouBd LUBJQ '!pB)ipei/\| - . 96e||!A 'qoued 'ejL|e>i - e)SE3 'uejeqiiQ O/AA !eqe6ueQ •^[: '!pe>|pe]/\| ieAet|oued uieJQ '!pe>|pBi/\| - b6e||!A 'iioued '!qoL|Q 9}seo 'aiejniiep o/g pesejd JeqnijBey •£[. '!pe^|pe|/\| ieAeL|oued LuejQ '!pe~>|pe|/\| - 96e||i/\ 'L|3UBcj 'ieiM nL|jeg 0/3 jeLun^Luey "^\. '!pe>|pe|/\| ieAeL|3ued UJBJQ '!pe^|pe|/\| - e6e||!A 'qoued 'ejqex - 9}se3 'ujejBLia O/M leqiuey • 1.1. '!pe>|pei/\| leAeqoued ujeJQ '!pe>|pe|/\| - e6B||!A 'Liauej 'iqoqa - 9}seo 'n]B)|na o/g lijejeAeo 'oi. '!pe^|pei/\| ieAeL|3UBd . uiejg '!pe>|pe|/\| ; - eOeiiiA' 'L|oued 'tEMey - eiseo 'UMOU^ io[\| o/g 'LUBJIBJIJ •Q '!pe>|pB|A]}eAeq3uec] LUBJQ '!pe>]pe|/\] - e6e||jA 'iioued 'ejqex - eiseo LUgjiqpns O/M leqiuey 'g ,y /-19. Yashwant S/o Mehttar, Caste - Teli, Panch, Village - Sonadula, Gram PanchayatMadkadi, 20. Saheblal S/o Bhurwa, Caste - Teli, Panch, Village - Sonadula, Grarn Panchay.at Madkadi, ,21. Jarnuna Bai, W/o Mariharan, Caste - Teli, Panch, Village - Sonaclula, Grarn Panchayat Madkadi, Respondent no. 5 to 21 are member of Gram Panchayat Madkadi, Block - Bilaigarh, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) r T ITr::'"^^iT!:' B— T^IGH COIJRT OP CHH}ATTTS(TARH ATBIIA8PITR 'JT PETmON (0 No. 6345 of2011 PETITIONER Smt. Ganga. Bai. \T,RSIJS State ofC^ihattisgarh & Others. AF^ WK11 PETITIQN_UNDER ARTLCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITU-IION OF INDIA SB: Hon'We Shri SatishK. Aeniliotri. .T. Present: Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate tor the petitionei Slii'i Ajit Siiigli, P^isl Li^wyst' tbrtlie St^te. (P, /'TS.-.r-^.-^.-^ ^^ /^^St .^...^,, .-.^i^.-^.^l^.^i ^ni •3 \ 'iisSiju 011 ^i uay vi ^civoei. ^uii^ 1. Challeaee in this petition is to the order dated 20.06.2011 (Aimexiire P/l) passed by the Additiona! Collector, Balodabazar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28,03.2011 (Aimexiu'e P./2^ wherebv the no-confidence motion aea.inst the petitioner has been deelared as carried out by 16 votes. 2. The facts, in nirtshell, a.s projected by the petitioner are that the Up- Sarpanch and 11 other panchas of Gram Panchayat, Makdi gave an intimation to the Sub Divisional QfBcer, Bilaiearh. District B-aipiir under sub-mle ('l) ofRule (3~) ofthe Chhattisearh Panchavat ('Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Paachayat Tatha Zila Panchavat Ke President Tatha Vice Presideat Ke Virudh • Avishwas Prastav') Nivam. 1994 (for short 'the Rule-.s. 1994') for no- confidence motion aeamst the petitioner, the Sarpanch of the Gram Paiichayat, ontfae allegation offinancial irregiilarities on 14.03.2011. The SDO registered a. case aad fixed the date fbr fdrther order on 17.03.2011 and appoint.ed N.R.Dhurve, Tahsildar Bilaigarh, as Presidine Officer. for coavenine the meetine ofno-confideace motion aeaiast the oetitioner on 28.03.2011. Thereafter. the no-confidence '^-•' " f ^ ---—-—-- .-——--..- ...-. ........ ...... . .-^ motion wa-s passed aeaitist fhe oetitioner. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred the dispute imder section ;I (4) ofthe ChJiatt.isearh Panchavat Rai Adhinivam, (for short, 'the. Adhimvani). challenging the proceedines of no- ^ BILI confidence motion as well as declaration to the effect that no confidence motion against the netitioner was camed oirt. The Additional Colleetor, Balodabazar. vide order dated 20.06.2011 (Annexiire P/l) held that the notice to hold no confidence motion on 28.03.2011 was issued oa 17.03.2011 and the date ofreceipt is not important but Ihe date ofissue ofnotice is important. The Additional Collector fiirther held fhat Ifae petitioner was givea fiill opportiinity of hearine and he participated in the proceedmes also and tendered his apology for havms committed mistAes to the Up-Sarpanch and ofher Panchas. 4. Shri Dubey, leamed coiuisel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that the no-confideace motion was carried out by 3/4 majority, hovv'ever, the whole proceedme wa.s in violation ofthe Rules, 1994 as accordin^ to Rule 3 offhe Rules, 1994, the prescribed authority, on receivingthe aoticeimdersubrole(l)shaUsiaithereona certificafe statinethedate on which hour and at whieh the notice was givea to him and shall aeknowledse its receiots. but in the instant ca.se. on Denisal of show cause notice dated 14.03.2011. it is evident that no time has been mentioned, thus, the whole croceedines suffer from violation of mandatory mles. Shri Diibey further suhmits the petitioner was not riven opportunity to speak at the time of no-confidence motion held on 28.03.2011. The petitioner received notice only three days before the date fixed for no-confidence motion which ought to have been given 7 days before the date ofthe meetmg. 5. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, penised the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. It is an admitted position that the no-confidence motioa was carried oirt agaiist the petitioner by thiunping majority as 16 members voted in favoiir of no-confideaee motion and only ons agamst the no- coiifidenee motion. )• 7. The Additional Collector, in the dispute referred under section 2l(4) oflhe Adhinivam- has considered fhe issues raised before him a.s well a.s before this Coiirt. The Additional Collector has rishtlv come to the conclusion fhat the date of receipt of Hotice before convening the r i .i S.r. ,.A. ..•^S-!.^ €"% i^ ^i i»°-<y 3 meeting ofthe Gram Panchayat specifying date, time and place is not to be eoiurted from the date ofreceipt ofthe notice, but from the date of its dispatch. It is also clear that the peititioner had fiill opportimity in the meeting and he addressed the Un-Satpanoh and other membere of the Gram Panehavat also. It is not in dispute that the notice was despatched immediatelv after 17.03.2011 when it was decided to convene the meeting ofthe Oram Pancha.vat on 28.03.2011. 8. Cta penisal of the impueaed order, it appeare that Ihe issue of no certificate as contemplated imder sub-role (2) ofRule 3 ofthe Rules, 1994 is a procedurai requirement which has to be followed. However, satisfaction ofthe preseribed authority with reeard to notice to move the motion ofno confidence against the Sarpaneh was cleariy found in the order dated 17.03.2011, wherebv it was decided to convene a meetmg to initiate motion of ao-confidence aeainst the petitioner on 28.03.2011. 9. Sub-nde (3) of B-ule 3 ofthe Rules, 1994 which is in respect of issiie ofnotice provides for dispatch ofnotice shall be geven days before the date ofmeeting. Seven davs is accordinelv not to be counted from the date of receipt of the notice, but from the date of its dispatch. Rule 3(3) ofthe Rules, 1994 reads a.s under; "3(3)....The notice of such meetina specilving the dale, liine and plaue thereof shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Seeretary of ihe Gram Panchayal or Chief Execuli-ve OIIiuer ofthe Janpad or Zila Panchavat, as the ca.se mav be, to every member oftlie Paachayat conceraed seven days before the meeting." 10.In an identieal matter, this Court, m Pilaram Dewangan &Another v. State ofChhattisgarh & Otherf obser/ed as under: "16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the ca.se of I Jai Charan Lal Arnil v. The Slate of U.P. & Others (AIR 1968 SC 5 (v 55 C.2) while dealmE with Ihe provisions under Uttar Pradesh ' Miuiicipalities Act, 1916 provides for clear 7 days intehrentiou between date of dispatch of notice and date ofmetina observed tfaat "the sub- section says that me District Magistrate shall send tfae aotice not less than. seven clear da'ro before 2006 i;1) BU,40 \»w ^~ the date of the meeting and the word 'send' shows that the critical date is the date of the h ofthe notice. As the notice was sent on the 17 and ihe meeling was lo be ualled on the 25 , it is obvious that seven clsar days did intervene and there was no breach ofthis part of the section". The identical facts and provisions of law are involved ia the p-esent case. The notice was despatehed on 22.8.2006 for the meeting to be held on 30.08.2006. Ttius, tfaere were 7 clear days between the date of despatch and the date of ineeiing." ll.Election is fhe basie pillar ofthe democratic eiections. A candidate who participates in the election process eets elected by majority of i- votes polled in his favour. In a snnilar way, when a no-confidenee motion is carried aeainst an elected candidate, and the motion is carried oirt by a ckar majority, the same cannot be held as iilegal merely on the g'ound of some technical defects and the allegations made by the petitioner, whieh are not supported by any doctimentary evidence, or otherwise. The no-coiifidence motion has been passed by a elear majority in a proper resolutioa hdd in presence of the petitioner. 12. This Court, in Ghanshyam Yadav v. Ramesh'.var Sahu & Others^ held that no prejudice, whatsoever is caused in any manner when the resolirtion was passed by overwhelmme majonty. In the instant case, it is clear that the members ofthe Gram PanchaYat have lost faith in tfae Sarpanch, andthus, he was removed by no-confidence motion. 13.1a view ofthe foregoing, and for the rea-sons stated hereinabove, tNs - Court, in exercise ofits power under Article 226 ofthe Coastitirtion of India, is not inclined to inteTfere with the impugned orders which are legal, just and proper. 14. Accordmgiy, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Amlt Sd/- SatishK.AgB «tn Judge "2007 (2) BLJ^SI