HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCARH AT BILASPUR P^itioner Respondents W.P.(C)Np.3?67pf2007 Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Ganpat Miri S/o. Chintamani Miri, Aged about 34 years, Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Hataud Vikas Khand & Tehsil - Kasdol, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary Panchayat & Gramin Vfkas Mantrataya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Dist Raipur - (C.G.) The Collector, Raipur - (C.G.) The Sub Divisional OfRcer & Presiding Officer, Bflaigarh, Dist: Raipur - (C.G.) The Tehsildar, J.R. Verma, Kasdol, Dist:Raipur-(C.G.) Mangli Bai W/o Banafar Chouhan, Panch Krishn Govind S/o. Babulal Patel, Paunch Radhelal S/o. Sukhlal Chouhan, Panch Devmati W/o Sukhlal Chouhan, Panch Satyanarayan S/o. Melaram Patel, Panch Ratanlal S/o. Mahatma Patel, Panch Mohanlal S/o Bhawam Satnami, Panch Chandra Prakash S/o Punit Ram Patel, Panch Rageen Bai W/o Achhelal f^itel, Panch Yogesh S/o. Khedu Ram Patel, Panch Umendram S/o. Latelu Kanwar, Panch Santoshi Bai W/o Dhanraj Kewat, Panch Khotbehara S/o Mohar Kewat, Panch Narmada Bai W/o Kishn Govind Patel, Panch Dukuram S/o Uderam patel, Panch Rameshwar, S/o Pratap Patel, Panch Phool Bai W/o Sukhlal Kanwar, ui^.-r.-T.-l.- C-S^"~.S~~~-:"~'''"--.Z~:' Panch 22. Anjor singh S/o Pakla Kanwar, Panch 23. Dhansingh S/o Jagat Paikra, Panch Respondent no.5 to 23 R/o. Village - Hataund, Vikas Khand & Tehsil - Kashol, Dist: Raipur - (C.G.) Ofl/rit Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Justice Satish K. Aanihotri Present : Shri l-1anuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate for the petjUoner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt.Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passedon12'"IJuly,2007) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 17.04.2007 (Annexure P-5) whereby and whereunder the vote of no confidence motion against the petitioner (Sarpanch) was held as passed by 16 votes out of 18 members present in the meeting. The petitioner has further impugned the order dated 06.06.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additiional Collector, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur whereby and whereunder it was held that the vote of no confidence passed under Section 21(1) ofthe Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short' the Adhiniyam, 1993') against the Sarpanch petitioner wasvatid andproper. •* 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of village Hataud, Tehsil & Development Block Kasdol, DistriGt Raipur in the election. There are total 20 members, who constitut®Gram Panchayat of village Hataud. Out of 20 members, 19 members made a request to the Sub-Divisional-Officer-cum- Pr^cribed "^' Authority for initiaCng proceedingsfbr 'no confidence motion'. The Sub Dhrisional OfRcer passed an order dated 17.04.20)7, directing to hotd the meeting on 30.04.2007 for considering 'no confidence motion' against the petitioner. Accordingly, Tahsiklar Kasdol was appointed as Presiding Officer. The meeting took place on 30.04.2007 wherein 18 members participated. Out of 18 member, 16 members voted in favour of 'no confidence motion'. The 'no confidence motion' was declared as passed vide order dated 30.04.20)7 (Annexure P-2). 3. Being aggrieved, the petitfoner referred the dispute to the Collector under the provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 21 of the Adhiniyam 1993. The main contention of the petitioner was ttiat the Presiding Officer has considered 3 invalid votes in favour of 'no confidence motion'. The Add'rtional Collector / respondent No.2 after having considered all the facts came tq the conclusion ftat the 'no confidence motion' was conducted in accordance with law and same was passed accordingly. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this pet'rtion on the same ground that the count of ttie votes was defective on account of the fact that 3 invalid votes were counted wHhother valid votes against the petitioner in favour of 'no confidence motion'. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 provides that if 'no confidence motion' is passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resQluUon passed by major'rty of not less than three fourth of the panchas present and voting and such majority is more Indu than two Uiird of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat, the no-confidence motion is carried out legally. 6. Admittedly, there are 20 members in the village Panchayat. In the meeting dated 30.04.2007, 18 members participated and 16 members voted in favour of 'no confidence motion' i.e. more than two third of the total members of Panchas i.e. 20. The Addittonal Collector has considered all the facts and come to the proper conclusion that the 'no confidence motion' was passed in accordance with the provisions of taw. The petitionerdoes not challenge any other irregularity. Theorder passed by the Additional Collector does not warrant any interference. The reasoned order passed by ttie Additional Collector is just and proper. 7. ft is well setUed principle of law that this Court while exerclsing te jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has limited jurisdiction to the extent of reviewing the case, in the event, there is perversity, irregularity or illegality in the process ofdecision, not in the decision itseff. 8. tn view ofthe foregoing, th®petition is dismissed.summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1