@ E%§&§“§ $$UR‘? f3? JumQgTwRE CHEATT§$$AR§=§1 3§L$X$PUR Writ F‘Ei%a‘§ @E Na. W3 a? 2%Q? Miihlesh Kumar 1 aiai Sis Jai Ram Paiei, aged about 52 yeai’s, Up-$arpamh Viiiage Panshayai—Kuiba, giackfTah Raiga;‘h, Dist- Raigarh {$3.} §jetéii0ne¥ ". $iai'e cf CQ‘ ihmug’n Secretary, Panchayat and Saciai Welfare $epariment, Mantraia‘y, Raigmr (CC-a.) 2. Disirici C0§lecior, Raigar‘n, DastwRmgam (C3) Specified QfficerfSub Divisioaal O§icea Ra'agam, Qisi-Raigam {3G3 4. Pmd“‘5ng Qffiser/Nak Tah$i%dai', Dmgan Eisi-Ra§garh {$.G.) i wxnbu 5‘ Vikiage-Pamhaya’i, Kui‘m, through its Secrem'y, Ems? Raigam, D§s?—Raigarh {6.6.} X1§§lage-Pamhayat, Kalba, Biack/Disé'Raigarh {cm 6. Vidyanand Patei. Rammed Sai’pamh, gmgia Beach; Hen‘bie Smi Jvstise Egzai‘gggi“; K. .Eavniha‘éza‘é Shri Maninch‘a Shrims aw, Samar Advocaie with Sirm KN. Neme AdvccatrE fa? we peti’tmner. Sa‘mi U’ikar$h Verma, Dy. Govt. Advecate for the fespondeMS Na ’1‘ ta AISéa'ie. 3m} 3D. Guru, Ada’ocaie far me mspmdam Na. 5. Shri P. Diwakaf. Senim’ Advocate W§th Sim R3. Fa€ei, Ash/mam ”for the responden': N0. (3‘. GFIDER §Pg§ged an ms 1s+3m3 mm} 3y the in$iant pe'i‘tiom, féied Lmder Aaiwe 226 of the Cons the petiiiona seeks feiiowirag reHe iéen a? Endm. 5. §." 7" T9 saH ihe entire ¥ecor€§$ 0f ihe 35x39 am to pem5$ 4&9 Samg. "i2 May k§nd§y be please 'tO ailowmg i‘ne imiani app§§ca€im for swymg of ihe aperaiien am ef§ect 9f ihe recmm’t made by the 3eamec§ 333.0. Raigam in Rev. Base N3. 1Q E!’i21f06— w @3 O? d3. ’56.01.0? pursuant i0 ci’déy of ’sfma leamed Caiiecier passeé 'm $ase my 11fA*319i05-U? cit 08.01 .D'L 7.3 Tc iswe any othex' wa'it ox" direct‘mns or cidem i3: fwaur of the getiiimer and against i‘ne resgandents in i‘ne inerwt a? justéce! wuFQ and fair pimy. 14 "$33 %$3ue & wi? En nature OT mandamus m Grder cf dkeciiori ccmmamling i'e3pa&*)d3m"s is be wrmleted i'he pfcceedimg ef appomtmam of effiaia't'mg Sarpanah and hand over the charge ‘m him. 15 Tc: award cos? of this p Tm Enjispui‘able factg, in nu‘tS‘neB, are i‘nat tha peti‘donea’ is ‘ihe e'iec‘zed Up— Sai’panch of ti e Gram SF’anshayat, Kmba, BEocK’and District Raigam On the basis 9f somplain‘i made agaim’i the respcndent N0. Sarganch cf i‘ne Gram Panchaya’t, Kulba, he scnfidemé mama was nmaed and the meeting far the same wa$ hekj cm 233‘; ”i 200-?) {Annmui‘e PM), whewum‘er we m cmf§deme rrzciier; againsi We respeadent Na. 8 W213 paSSefi by 12 vows in favour a? the muswféderace ma’fion, 2 \0e3 agama‘t am? 1 ‘mie was deciared as imaléd. The Pans’aayat éom‘titumd sf 15 members induding Sagparish and Up—Sag’pamh. P3} We membaxs pafz§cipa€ed 1r the magiing hem for m canf§dence maiicn againsi ihe raworadem Na. a The F‘rasidim Gfiiiserncum-Nab TahsiHar Vida iei'tez' dated 28.11.2GQS {Annexme P12) infermed o the Prescribed Authority“ nai Qf‘ficef (Revenue), Ra§garh ihat aw the ‘15 members ‘Qamcipated in the pfoceedings, au’i 0'? which 12 membaa cas‘i the? vetas in favaur of no canfideme agams? the respei‘sdzeat No. E, wmch is mam than ‘t‘nreeu‘fourth of khe iota} members pi'esent. Thus, the m ionfidence moiiea was aaccydmgi‘y gagged. On me next daie La. 2Q.H.2DQ6 {f—‘x‘mexure W3), the Sub D§vi$30na1 efficer (Ravenue), Raigarh {hes'einafte‘r F4) L9, eieciec’x }ix e 'O @ referi'ed is as “the SD ) wvak Lo i’he Secretary, G am P’mmayat Ki £9 f0? appammg affmiaéing Sarpanch within a perms! o? 15 days. Being aggieved, ‘t’me rQSpondem No. 5 made a rei:erence or: 4.12.2008 i0 ihe CoHector, Fiaigarh under sub~5ection (4} of Sectian 21 of the whawi‘isgayh Pamchaya’i Raj Avam Gram $waraj Adhiniyam, ’ii—Dgs (hereinaf’zez‘ refwed 4:9 as ‘ihe Adhiniyam‘ 1993’). The Co§§ecior vide Oma‘ éaied 1M2 068, aiayed the subgequent as km pwwan i‘o as n3 h). confidenge motiom dated 2€.1‘:.200§. Ti':efeafte?, vide order éaied (f: 1203? (Annexuw W ‘« we CaHecior 1mm: c‘ oack the mai’tar to t'h S DQ. for g'ecoaima‘xg Of «age cast in no wnfideme mdien, had 0n 28.11.2386. The $3.0. r'atounied vetes on 1&1 .206? {Amexm‘a %3;’€) m presence a.” all me cancemed and faund Mai 1G votes, were casi in favaur cf tie no son'fMence motion, two voies were wsi againsé i’ne m aamficieme matien anci 3 votes were fwnd invalid. Thus on me i !ca3is of 4.0 vaies, no comf§deme maiiorz came? be haké as pawed. Bemg aagm no, the petr’nonvy has Wei .m msytam a .uim seek m; Lay (3wt: V ii’ze ogemiion and e§ect of the recoum clone en “g6. 280i .xrevart .0 h cmei daied 8.1 .200? gaesed by ‘ihe Celieeisr, Raigar‘n. Shfi Menimdm Serivastava. leemed $enie? Advocaée with See .‘iN. Mamie, Eearned Advoeefe emeaz'ing f0? the eetiiionw wewd eubmit t‘qe. under the previsions m‘ i011 21 {4‘ ef ‘éghe Acéhi. iyam, 1993, Em CeHector acme 25 competent i0 examine :he validity of ihe pi'oce‘edings, bui‘ he 373:3 m :mwer $0 ciirect recount 0f vafes iii fespec? 0f no confidence moiiora. 1+. was fu'xihei centended the? the {taiiector in exercise of his powef has actee beyond his comnetence by easeing the srder for i'ecouniirig of vetes. Recount of votee might to have been done by the Presiding Qfiicer/Naib Tahsiidar, no‘; by any other officer. h. O1 @Q it was next contended that in the instant sase, the Naib Tahsiidar was moi present at the time of recounting. The Coilecior alane is obligewE t0 decide the dispute. H52 has m3 authority under the law to delegate such pawef and aui'harity i0 any of his subordinates or any other amhority. The diwciion of reseun’i was paseed wiihout haiding any triaL resending evidence and without deciding the tiispuie, whim was the subject metter befare him. TIiie 1" weiieetm‘ has campieieiy abdicated its power as an adjudicating authoiity under Seation 21 {4) cf the Acihiniyam, i383. Thus the order e? the coiiec‘ior is iiiegai, void, ab-iniiio and nonnest in “Ehe eye m" law. Aliei‘neiixleiy‘ ii was submitieci that the side? of receuniing 0n meie aeking cannet be done wi'ihoui taming to the eeeciusion iiiai i'eeoun’cing was necessary. The same has not been done in the instani case. in iegaa‘d ’ze ihe objection of aliernaiive remedy by way cf revisien as prevideci under Ehe previeions a? the Chhattiegarh Panchayats (Appeal And Revieion) Rules, 1995 {hereinafier referied ‘to as ‘the Ruies, 1%5’), learned couneei wouid submi? that the eubstantiai provisions 0f Seoiion 2“: (4} of ihe Adhiniyam, 1%?) cieady providee that decision of the Coiiector sheii be finai. Thus, any ai‘iemative and 'staiutory remedy ef appeai or ievisioa as provided under the Rules, 19% framed in exercise ef its eower eonferred by $ec’rion 95(1) read Wiéh sec'iion £31 cf the Adhiniyem cannot eyerride ‘ihe subsianéiai provision of ihe Adhiniyem, 1%3‘ Fier centre, Shri P. Diwakar, learned Senior Adwoate with 53hri RS F’atel ieerned Advocate appearing for the reeponden’: Nor 8 would submit that the peiiiion has become iniruczuoue as the prayer sought for cannot be granred es the order of recounting hae already been complied wi‘th. The petiéioner has not challenged the impugned order dated 8.1.200? passed by ihe Cellecter, while qaiestioning the legaliiy and validity of ihe order direciing the SDI). fer recounting ofvotes. There is inherent discretionary CF) u'i powaf vests in ‘ihe CoHec‘tor m grant interim aie‘f during pendency of tine dispute. The wri’i peiitiora is no‘c main’tainabie as aiiemative remedy ef thg revi$ion under Rule 5 of the Rules, 19% is avaiiabie. "Hie remedy i5 efficacieus and the same carmot be giver; a gab‘g‘. m mom . gme gieaciings am submissims mada by the parties, feiiowing questiorzs arise f0? consideratiori: i) Whe‘ihei‘ the Collector, iri exemise 0f its power under Section 21 (4) cf the Arl’niniyam, 1993 is; camraete‘a’: lo diiect tha Preawibed Alhority to i‘ecoun‘l votes palied in rao confidence matim? ii) Whether the relief for stay 0f raccunting a?“ voles which was clone puisuant :0 the order dalecl 0301.200? passed by ihe rewomdemt No. 2, can be grarated, Wilma? imgvugning the order dated 08.01 .2OQ7? iii) Whether this petition under Article 228 of the Conetitutien ie mairrtainable whee. a realision under Rule 5 er‘ Rules, 1995 agairiet the Order dated 08.01 .200? paseecl by the reepcndent No. 2 is available? A diseute with regard t0 ceunting of votes in the nemeonflclerrce metior; against eepondent No. 8, held on 28.11.2006 was referreei by the $arpansh (Respondent No. ‘6) to the Collector under provisions of seotion 21(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The respondent No. 6 fiied an applioatioh for stay of the eubsequent action pursuant to rio oorrficienoe motioh dateo A i 2&1 ’t .2005. The Collector granted stay of the eubsequent aotion pursuant to the ho cohfidehee motiorr dated 28.11.2007 (Arrhexure PM). The case of the reepohclerit No. 0 betore the Collector wee that the countihg ot' votes was hot groperly clone. The requirement was to pot x v/1 or xvA marks ih the voting elip with recl ihk. in some of the voting elipe, ‘~/’ mark were oh the back o? the slip anal irr some or” the votihg slips, red ink was not used and ‘X’ was marked at the beck of the slip. The Sollector, after having swsidegled candusbm ma. comtin§ of vete$ m ihe nQ-Canfiaeme motiom daied 2R M2 O6 against i‘ne respondem‘: Ne. 6 wa$ not properh; dome. it was e r :anteaded by the iaamed wunse! far fhe pe’iifjonw mat grace m corafidence matian has been mmeU Gut, i'he wme somes inio effect :WMCdxaLeby ‘ma, $é subsc‘quem c t g m watt—,3 Panw be awerecl The Cijiieuor, afl‘cr “awm ne 1i t m h caumzr‘g mgr“ my awe raperiy, dé‘resied ihe wesmiiaad o€§cer the Sui) Diyieioneé Qfker {:0 seneuci recoun’zirgg 0‘? veies 2:3!!ed in mesom‘idence mc’xian dated 28.‘:’1.ZCO’5 “we prern Jm m (41} of We eciifo rr ego—swi Seeiion 21, of i Ach myan 1993 thai ence “no senfidenase metion“ 1 cm? ed 0L“ qganst a Sqmem 1 or Uv-Sarmnc? e3 the case may be, §s no a ‘zmhaioq er; t ie moweg’ cf the D§Str§ai CoEector to pass appmpriate inéerim a'de wher‘s a fefemme envisaged under 3ec*3’1 2144} c“? the Aehhmsa q !s mad 0y Ehe Sei‘gamh or Up—Sai‘panch a: the case for Ne ”iec‘s 071 (“he $mi. (Eaeami $Z’zarAdFa & whea'e E151 New Ram 8a we“: 2w m :3 L J: gee) Tm mme‘ileh 0i fie i amee wanna fer L7”e get; i a’t t": i0 cage? t0 have exeycised the mwer of dir on m am: 0C; of veee” at": y after fu§§ mai deeewes i0 be rejected. Tee pewe¥ 0f the CcHecic? under $eeti ”:( ) of i‘he Ad§1iniyamj€393 cenfmea to acm mam a? the dEspute refen’ed to him. The Ceiiecior has adjudiaaied ii‘ie giegpu‘ie by gaming i0 the seneiusim thai the countin i o voiea peiieci ii": izile 31cm 1- ¢ iiie campeteni auihm‘i‘iy for iecau’ntin Cu Votes am t0 t3 e “ppiepneie aaioe. T a cent i 0f he ie med houneei nail amoune t0 aociice i ef' mwei’ i$ without any basis: as ihe Caiieetor has adjudieeted the diepu'te a'a‘ier comsicieying aii ihe facts end hearia’ig ieameci cwmeei fer ihe’ a aiawer belch, “iremma the comoeiem aumcrmi m recou {w es psiiec; i i fexc'ljs and afier examining the papers, came 1:0 the \ be 4y a caniicieriee motiori was not proper. Thue, E was mecessary mi“ ixm‘ to Ci r r e ‘i s“ !J\ 'm ‘the n0~sen§§dence mo‘ajon. Wis wag m e case of (’e1egamw Cf pewer i by tin cwacu t he exerdsed madm’ seciécn ‘(4} Gf the Aiihiniyam, 3B 19%? km it was; the saw wherem Lame CeHeciQr Ms ’16 Lidwaied a timJe s. urgder seam}? 2‘44; m’ ’Me Arturgym, 19133 M; Paw d: c330 r” ma‘m‘eru \w 3h car f L3 :wm c3 ‘cijz n '5k3pn’vaied by vwy max/$1021 9f ‘=aw Lander : Lia iiseif has men m‘eated. {Sae Pmkash r4 J&i;? V W? L was {f/s, {2O 3} E? SCC 453W. Er; me im‘ia’ni case, me power G'f‘the C31§ecier mdeg' seg'tim 2 {4, o; M: Achxwyam 19% h“: my we“: cmumscribed by any wovisicn Thus, the Coliec’cor is campe’aen'i: i0 exam '* ims “ww by giamag Walm m: {w we pmpef ad§udicati9n of ihe di$pmte penciing before him. As he} A {3"p ‘ML me go §ccm has mat \ Wm m the sampe‘k 1 a delegated his power exerciwbia undea' swiicn 24R 4" ; a;£ inthe Adhmiyam, 18%, the d§cision of Bambay MLmfcipa! Carpwaffor; v. Shanda Narayar? “naudivgy WE 49% SC 1485;, and Sxjpax boarwo Lfa Vb". a ’ Cbemica§s fd {9006) SCC W4), aehad c ,1 hc—H med counse! fez‘ the pei ilerer is a0} aobi cablet ’I ‘ f C‘i's af ma wesem aase. ”a “eg N3 to «seaming of vota3 in m-corJidence moticn, where éoi'al 15 memba’s; wefe presem and 12 members voéed in {favour a? m~com§uence .E A motian racoummg a0? mic: voies becow‘w verv ‘ o tan as ewan cbargy m ihe nature 0f twe votes changes the result compieteh}. On :eceum: g‘ i was faund thai three voteg were inva§iclrtwe voieS were caet agemst no~ remde ‘Ce m 10m and 10 votes were s? w xavcu of Me no caPTibeme mo§ ne ;et;uwer1em under sect‘xoia 21(1) 0f the Adm wee} ‘ 3 is kw $ i thai if mom ihan é’nree-fom’th members presem arid voting in favcur of no~ can§kience motion, we iionsonfidgnce mot§cm i$ samed out. The eamer 12 memberzs we‘ie hem i0 mve cast iheir vote5 in favou; of no—confwence motmn am} Ewe voteS were paileé agaim‘c ‘tha m—conf5c!ence mmion am we was rejected in ihe event ‘32 votas were cask w favow 0’? frae m- confideme mmwm, na scnfhjgmg 'rnoiion was hgid i0 be gamed au’z. aui if $0 vaias are c325? in favour of no—ccnfidence mama, it és not three-fourth cf i, ”mg ioéai membem gofesen‘: and “ms no carxfmence motEan is na‘c camed out. Thus, i camot 23$ hem that recounting of votes waS errjéyed on mew \ asking w?t§*:ou’: making out a case far 2'ecoLmting, 13. With mgai'c) t0 avaiiabiiity cf aliemative remedy by wing revisian agai‘nSi the order dated 8.1 .2007 passed by the CoHecter, it is not mecessezy to go ’m deiai? a3 to whether aiiemafive remeciy o§ fn‘mg revisian wade? Ruie 5 of Ruies, 1995 was availabie cg“ not as E? is trim iaw that aveiiabiiii'y 0i aitez’naiive remeeiy is mi an absolute bar ioz‘ maintainabtiity of a writ petition, 1.4-. The matter has been heard at length. Therefore, at mis Stage, examining the evaiiabtiity of alternative remedy would not serve arty gureoeel rue petitioner has net impugned tire order dated 8.31 .200? pursuant it: winien the ereler of recounting by the cernpetent officer was orcieree. i Tne r eeiitioner has seught fer stay mi recounting pursuant to the order dated 00 .1 200?. i5. The learned ceuneel appearing fer the respondents sebmit titer the relie sought for by the eetltioner cannot be granted as the order dated 8.1 2%? has attained finalitxr fer want of challenge to the said order. 16 Be that as it may. Since i have examineel the order elated 8.1 .230? tram all angles, al this stage, it is not necessary to go into the question as to A 7. @ whether thés petétion i5; mainiainabie 9r not in abSeme of chaEmge ta the order dated 8‘1 .2037. As a resuit and 1‘03' the reasons aforementiwed, W3 goetition i3 di$mi$sed. However, in tha facts and circumstames of the casa, there sha” be n0 m‘der as i0 casts. Sdl- J Satish K. Agnihotri £ Judge