PYI'JQC: K^U IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION fC^ No.: - 12-^6/ / 2009. S.B PETITIONER: - .Xf/^ -v/is/ ^ ^^^ ^?^ -r ^/: y / ^ Phoolmati W/0 Shri Lal Mohan, Age-45 yrs. By Caste Cherva, By Post:-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat:-Tamki, Janpad Panchayat:- Odigee, At Present-Panch, Tahsil- Odigee, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) -: VE RS U S: - RESPONDENTS: '^o^^/^ /^^-•^ ^" The State of Chhattisgarh The Upper Collector, Through The Collector, Distt.:- Ambikapur (C.G.) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Presiding Officer, Revenue-Surajpur, Distt.:- Ambikapur ( C.G.) The Naiyab- Tahsildar, Returning Officer Tamki, {Shri A.R.Dhalen} Block -Surajpur, Distt.:- Ambikapur (C.G.) -: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION (S) /ORDER fS): - @ II ^liiSi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPLJR WRIT PETITION (0 No. 1264 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Phoolmati. VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri J.A.Lohani., Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 22nd day of September, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Additional Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed in Revenue Case No. 2-A/89/07-08 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Surajpur, and the resolution of no-confidence motion passed against the petitioner on 25.01.2008 (Annexure P/3), has been dismissed. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Tamki, Janpad Panchayat Odgi, Surajpur, District Surguja. The panchas of the said Gram Panchayat moved an application before the Nayab Tahsildar for carrying out a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. For the said purpose, meeting was held on 25.01.2008 in presence of 10 elected panchas wherein the Presiding Officer permitted only 9 members to participate in the proceeding and caste their vote and refused the petitioner to participate in the said •'",J"""'^ I ''^.^y "^-^f^^^ proceeding of no-confidence motion. Out of 9 panchas, 7 voted in favour of the resolution of no-confidence. According to the petitioner, the Presiding Officer, without adopting proper procedure, declared the no-confidence motion against the petitioner and forwarded the same to the Sub Divisional Officer for its confirmation. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner moved an application on 28.01.2008 before the respondent No. 2 for setting aside the no-confidence proceeding, which was dismissed. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Collector, Ambikapur, which was also dismissed by the Additional Collector, by order dated 12.02.2009, in an illegal and arbitrary manner without appreciating the facts and circumstances of this case in its letter and spirit. Thus, this petltion. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 12.02.2009 is not in accordance with law and the same has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner. In the no-confidence motion proceedings, out of 11 elected members, 10 panchas participated including the petitioner. The Presiding Officer refused the petitioner to participate in the said proceedings. Out of 9 members, 7 cast their vote in favour of no-confidence motion proceedings. According to the petitioner, the 2/3 majority comes to 7.5 i.e. 8 and not 7. Thus, there is a procedural irregularity in the no-confidence motion proceedings. On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in fact, there are 11 elected .; ^•s^'^^.^ '^•^ ,1 members at Gram Panchayat, Tamki. However, at the time of initiation of no-confidence motion proceeding, one Panch namely Ashok Kumar Sinha (Panch ofward No. 8) died, therefore, only 10 panchas have participated in the proceedings including the petitioner but 9 have cast their vote, except the petitioner. The petitioner put her signature in the minutes register. The petitioner has failed to establish the fact that the presiding officer has prohibited the petitioner from participating and casting her vote in the no-confidence motion. The petitioner is trying to mislead the court by placing wrong calculation. The action taken by the respondent authorities, including passing the impugned order, is just and proper and warrants no interference ofthis Court. 6. Heard leamed counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. The Additional Collector, in the order dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure P/l) has not considered the fact as to why, the petitioner being Sarpanch, though participated in the no confidence motion meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence against him, he was debarred from participating in the voting. It is true that ifhe is also taken as a member of Gram Panchayat., the total number of members participated would be 10, and out of 10, 3/4 as required under section 21(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short (the Adhiniyam, 1993') would be 7.5 and as per the guidelines, issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department with regard to conduct of no-confidence motion proceeding, it is stated that if 3/4 members come to 7.5, the minimum members should be 8 to constitute 3/4 members oftotal number of members 10 persons present. The 'Tanch" and "Sarpanch" have been defmed under Sections 2(xvi) and 2(xxv) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, respectively. 8. Thus, the impugned order, it appears has not considered the important aspect ofthe matter asto why the petitioner was debarred from. participating in the voting. 9. In view ofthat, the impugned order dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure P/l) is quashed, However, the matter is remitted back to the Additional Collector, Ambikapur for considering afresh the dispute involved in the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit