ss.^ig^SS ^S^^S^sM^^S IB &^;• V-4i ^ ®ngleBench IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.^ Writ Petition N0. •<^7~uc^ /2006 fS.B.t PETITIONER <^'-^ ^. o ^ A^ ^.' sy.y <y r.-?S.7^^'.:-a^^ ^^ fify' x\ Dallichand Jain aged about 38 years, S/o. Premraj Jain, R/o. Village Gota, Tah. Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS :1 State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat & Social Welfare Departme.nt, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Gram Panchayat Gota Tahsil ; Dhamdha, Distrhct Durg (C.G.) Through : Secretary 3. The Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4. Additional Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF I N D IA RESPONDENT .^/ .,4^ ^T.-K^'" ^w/ ^w. /^•^•" i\..v -^ *<I*IMI **ll<b 3sr ^nw<f, ®iflu'ii»,fSldiyy .^^a.^T.olj. ^ 200 i 3<1<S?1 laih (^dtjal^liT) 3n^rwR-)i* aW3TI^Tsb^|i» gTaTsiTgfitrsn^CT 2tX)6 flts 16.6.2006 5hri H.V. Sha'ma, /tdvocate| Shri Ashutosh Singh respondents No.l, 3&4. Heard. By this writ petition under 1^1 the petitioner has questioned th^ confidence resolution dated 13.3.; of ffram Panchayat, ffoto and also P-1) passed hy the Additional Colle^ Brief facts of thecase, petitioner was the elected Sorpan^h members of Panchayat and 5arp4nch opplication before the prescribed Panchayat for consideration of no which the pr'escr'ibedauthority iss( 13.3.2006 at 11 <x.m. at (?ram confidence motion was passed Armexure P-3. The petitioner proceedin9S of no confidence motjon to respondent No.4-Collector. Th^ confidence motion on the ground before seven days of the meetin^ petjtioner- was not given opportunifY for the petitioner. l.achhawaha, Sovemment Advocate for ^rafepfl^wRff^fai^ <Rf^i< ^arf^rsiT^T irticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India legality, pi'opriety and correctness of no (Annexure P-3) passed by the members [•eference order dated 26.4.2006 (<4nnexur'e |;tor, Durg. mentioned in writ petition, are that the of 6ram Panchayat 6ota consistin9 of 13 i. Meinbers of the Panchcyat moved <m |authority for- calling meetin9 of members of ^onfidence motion against the petitioner on ped notice on 6.3.3306, fixed the meeting on P<jnchay<rt Bhawon, $ota and accordingly, no 49ainst the petitioner as per proceedin9S r'aised dispute regar'ding vatidity of the and therefore, the dispute was referred petitioner has challen9ed the validity of no that the notice was not dispatched to him of no confidence motion and secondly the to speak during the no confidence motion. •^.^.c^. _; -fsyw^w^sws'^ss^ss'sa -^'-^SSyz^fWifSyt<&f9Sf XI-HC-78 TST •<<i<<iin^, siifly'is, Ricii+iy *11*1CTI Sh+lictl ^ 200 3(1^1 4d* ('iy^ST) sn^r^iT^ri^ (PTTSTT^TOTTSR gTdIWgf^B'an^T -2\ Jan((ad The Additional Collector hos not petitioner and upheld the no confid^ motion Hfas not passed in accordcmc^ Sarpanch Tathd Up-Sarpanch, President Tatha Vice-President Ke Qiereinafter shall be referred as 'Rul| I have heard learned counsel the record. The main ground raised by Shij (3) of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 seve| petitioner and other members of P Sharma is that the petitionerll/as theconfidence motion meeting was Having heard learned counsel notice (Annexure P-2), which, as per on 6.3.2006 under Sr. No.447. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Ru| such meeting specifying the date, tin^ desptoched by him through the Se^ Executive Officer of the Janpad or^ every member of the Panchayat Therefore, the requirement of Rule days befor-e the meeting. tirrte °hi<<rn<fl-f *fitftiTfffec^<ISit<;i< ^sif^rsn^T c|?nsider'ecf the objections raised by the (nce motion. As such, the no confidence with M.P. Panchayat (6ram Panchayat Ke Panchayat Tatha Zila Ponchayat Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 l^sofl994'5 for the petitioner at length and perused |i Sharma is that in compliance of sub-rule fi doys notice was not despatched to the ^inchcyat. Second 9round raised by Shri l^ nd^ kg^ yven opportunity to speak before cdrried out. for the petitioner, I have perused the ^ecord, was despatched to the petitioner |es of 1994 contemplates that notice of and ploce thereofshall be caused to be (retarc of the 6ram Panchayat or Chief Zila Panchayat as the case may be, to co^icerned seven days before the meeting. fs that the notice must be desptahced 7 XI-HC-78 TS? •^WM^, ®Tf1«'i6,Rciiuy *<IHMI Sb*11«» W^ 200 3||^<| i<a<n (yIg'K^'f) gn^Tq;rR-fi«h (W3TI^Tg^TRi 'l! . S. ^ Roshan/- 1^< roiTWHfer-sn^T "> In this case, the meetin9 desptached on 6.3.2006, thus, it i^ doys before the meeting, as such I As -for as second argument ^ the petitioner waesnot allowed to sp^ is concerned, I have per-used the clearly mentioned that at the meeti| Sarpanch 5cnt Kumar, same was thereafter discussion was held on tH opportunity to speak against the no | of this document, which was Tehsitdar, it cahnot be said that tt| speak at the meeting of no confiden^ No other- ground has been no confidence resolution, therefor^ petition, same is liable to be dismiss^ do redu4ed »i<i?fi<fl-<iii<iTiTtel^<Rt*&i< ^srf^ITa^T Iwas fixed on 13.3.2006 and notice was clear that the notice was despatched 7 not find any substance in this ar9ument. \f learned counsel for the petitioner that )^ak at the meeting of no confidence motion pi)oceedings of meeting in which it has been |ig no confidence motion was moved by Up- ^econded by Mohar Singh, Ward Panch, |e motion and Sar'panch Duiichand was yven confidence motion. Therefore, 'in presence into writing, in the presence of Naib |e petitioner was not given opportunity to te motion. in this petition callin^ in question the j, I do not find anysubstance in this writ s^d and it is accor-dingly dismissed^ Sd/- .G.^aAO° ralsed ^3ud^ ^'