Bga3S%BW8B ^sss^ss^^^s IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT B_ILASPUR rC.G.) Writ Petition N0. '^9'^'^ /_2Q06^rSJB.) PETITIONER .*p y'"^ ^°^y^ vo< Lir^C/ ^^>/ *** - <\*' ,-/ <^'^A--i" /.f' ^^^"^ ^^. '<^-' Smt. Gayatri Devi t^- • aged about ^9 years, W/o. Ram Manohar Mishra R/o. Village Gamju, Tah. Takhatpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) VE RSUS ^ESPONDENT :1 State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ^2. Competent Authority-Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenu) Kota, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ' 3. The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) y4. Gram Panchayat Gamju Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 1 WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF TH£ CONSTITUTION Of I N D IA XI-HC-22 sn^iw K-ii+sn^T sPTOHfel <nwiTai«i(<*i 3F^ '^i'iOct^, BTfl<i'i<o, Rtiaiyy ^^...^A^ ,„ ^ ftres: 311^1 SRIIW flfw 1S-9- Ai'ir. i-i,V. Sharma, counse! foj> Mr. U.N.S. Deo, ©ovt.Advoct ,'Ar. R.&. Sai, counsal for th^ behaif of Srnt. Dhankunwa" Sond. Heard learned counse! for tHi at ths admission stcge itself. I.A.No.8781/2006, opplicct} aitea'ed. Documents s"e takeii on r4 8y this writ petition under-] Indic, th®petitioner' has questionej 10-3-2006, whereby no confidence] post of Sorpanch, Sr'am Panchoycri". 3rief facts lsadin9 to fiii petitioner' was elected as Sarpanei Panchayct elections. Howaver, prescribed cuthority under Ruie Psnchsyat Ke Sar'panch Tatha Up-| Panchayst Ks President. Taths Vics Niyam, 1994 (hsreinafter referr'ed notics, the presct'ibed authority afl notice, issued notice on 27-2-200a for discussion on the no confideno Pcrichoyct buUding of Sr'cm Po"ehc' the petitioner. rte for the State/'respondents No.l to 3. intsr-vener on I.A.No.7026/2006 fiisd on ie psrties for final disposa! of th®petition on for toking documsnts on r'eeord, is ;cord. wrfrRft'.T WTrft'^'fetA rfSTRTC ^sri^iran^r Articie 226/227 of the Constitution ^4 i^i le9a!ity and vciiidity of resoiutiori datec motioh a9ainst the petitioner to hoid the iamju, hcs been heid to be carrisd out. i|ig sf this writ patition sr-a that ths of 6ram Ponchayat; Samju in the ©r'om man^bers of t'ne Ponchayat govs a r.otice to the p of tha Chhattisgdirh Panehayat (Sram -parpanch, Jonapad Panchsyat Tatha Ziis t-P,"esident K.s Virudh Av'ssny.ics P.r'astcv) |+o as 'ths ftuies, 1994'). On receivinfl the ler- satisfyino wsth the admissibility of the (o ths membefs of Srcrfi Panchcyat; Safnju dencfc mction on 10-3-2006 at 12 noon in the ^ist; iSamju, cs per tha provisions of sub- (Ift^^^) XI-HC-22 3sr "q i<<inii^3Tftwrre,_§CTgE XI-HC-22 sn^r^ir R-fi* 311^51 CTWHfN ^) KIKWI 9iff}«fi S^^IFTRTq', e'tfly'IS, Rffltiy 3)1^1 4^cb ^.....................g^ 200 f^Kg sn^rgTaTWHf^T 2- .rule (3j of Rule 3 of the Ru!es, 199ft. Howsver, on 6-3-200a, notice Annexure P-4 vias agwn issued by the pre^cribed authority, whereby the plsce of mestin9 wias chanaed from Sram P^nchcyo^ buiiding, ffomju to Primary Schoo! buiidiRg, £atnju,on tha ground that and on that day, out of 16 member^ except ths peti+ioner her'ein. FThe scid meetinq was hsld undsr the supervision of iVir. V.K. Lokra, Tsit ccirrisd out uncniraousty. The petiti iround thst the petitionsr made a ibner has challenaed the said motion on ths ^eferems before ths Collsctor cfi pa," the prov'igions of sub-section (4) of Se^tion 21 of the Chhcttisgarh Panchayirt Rsj Avam Gram Swaraj <4dhiniyam, 199: 9round raised by the petitloner her on 27-2-2006, whsreby the meetin. ^t<i"^: sui.'ding, there is RO provision in th another notice in between, as such Rules, 1994. Therefore, there w4 service of notice was not affected c|n the petitioner. Hcving heard tearned sounse| (3) of Suis 3 of the Rulas, 1994, K,'4 under sub-ruie (1) the pr'escr'ibed admissibitity of the notice and on t p.sce for the msetins of the Sran^ fifteen days frorn ths dots of recei meetin9 spscifying the dats, time wiifepft-T wRfr'ir'te^ rfwiR ^airf^Tsn^T there 'ss no bu'itding of ths Sram Panchayat 15 msmbsrs wsre present in ths meeting, silddr, and cfter discussion, motion wos and the ssms has not been daeided. Msin kin 'is thct when the notice wos once iSoued wcs fixed on 10-3-2006 in the Pandhoyot |s .-u!a to shange the pjacs of meeting by whoie proceedings were contrary to ths ^ no ciear notics of seven days arid the for- the psrties, I have psrused sub-rule ,'ch envjsagss thst on rscaiving the notiss ^uthor'ity shaU satisfy .himsejf afaout the ^ing sctisfied, sholi fix the dcte. time snd Psnchoyat which shali not be more thon Ipt of the said notics. The notice of such ^nd pia.&s t.hs"eof shcil! bs caused to be ((f^y^) ;.a XI-HC-22 S'SET^TPIRra', tfTny'16, [sldiyy 3T1^?T 4?|ch 111MI Shlich fc|<>«^ Wi; 200^ SD^T^T f^rRian^r 5h^lcft •Hf^tl an^T STdTW trf^T sespatched by him through the Sec member" of the Panchayat concerned ^even d<r/s before the meetin9. It is admitted position thot 1|i issued fixing ths meeting on 10-3-20( thst notice '.vse 'm consonance with tH the Ruies, 1994. Now, the questl |he sarlier notice dated 27-2-2006 wcs 26 in the Panchsiyat buildjng, ther'sfors, |e provisions of sub-r-ule (3) of Rule 3 of |on r'smains as to whether ths notice Annexure P-4, whereby the plscs of n|esting was changed, amounts to issuance of fresh notice cnd contrarr' to sub->(uie (3) of Ruls 3 of the Ruiss, 1994. It is ciso cdmitted posltion thst dsts notics dated 27-2-2006 wss not chan^ •rhe place of meeting wos changed oi^ notice it was mentioned thct the me4 b'dildin9, ss there is no Sram Psncha ^•hsr'sifor'ss^ the place of meeting Wi ^he fact thct no Sr'cw Panchayat buiii ^ffect the vaiidity of the notiee dat |'he petitioner hss mentioned in para :onfidence motion, but cs !t is admitt^ Isther 15 msmbers wsre present in th| fcarried out aqcinst the Detitione". 0, >esn fiied olong with the pstition as °h^Ft-1<fl-< liWvfi ff fs<S <Rl<-il< ^3T)^IT31TCRT stary of the Sr'aw Panchayat to every d time which was fsxed m ths ear'iier }ed by ths notice Anriexure P-4 in which sccount cf the foct +'nat in the esriier tin9 wi!i be heid in the Sram P<snchaya+ /ot buildin9 of Svam Psnehcyot; 6amju, .';ts changsd to P.-imary Schooi, 5anljij. hcn9ing the p!ace of sitting in the s^me viilage on cccount of ths mistskeof ling was existin9, in my opinion, does not ^d 27-2-2006. Moreover, even thouqh ^.2 (St'ounds) of the writ petition, that ths pstitionsr wci^ cisprivsd'o'f s?i odportunity to defsnd hsr durinci th®no |d position thot exeept tha petitione" ali ^ meeting and unonimous r'esolution wss 'lesr time of more thsn seven diiys wss iven in the earlier notice, which wa^ r'eceived by the petitioner, scme has Ann®xu?'£P-3, therefor'e, it ccnnot be Cflir^f^) [-HC-22 3^B?wa4, S^HTIS, terey 'SSI •^IWld'l), ^TflwiS, fadl'tiy tllHCTI (hKlcn 3TI^T4a<sb .^B^%^ ^v^, sn^T^iT f?rt°R3TI^T s»i*(itigfgcT sc'd that on cccouri+ of chQnce of p!i|ice of the meetir.a, any serious or'ejudiee was caused to the pstitioner" and th^ petitioner wos deprived of opportunity to dsfend the no coRfidencs motiorj she was cn elestsd Sarpaneh of Vil! on tle oas- ot 3ar'02ncn so iong "he Scj Av-a Sram Swaraj Adhiniyam, eiectea mamber's of the PsnchaM thsr-efore, URanin'.ous no coRfidanee! Kuies, 1994 rsquires thgt the natice autho"ity bafore seven dsys. Sub-i" chwfaifl-l WRff ^' te^t rfSRZTC ^srf^nsn^r Ths oetitions!- should not forcst th.st ge: &amju. She was entitlsd to continue eiected irsrabers of the Panshcyct svsrs hsving confidence in hsr, as psr th^ sehen-is of ths Chhal'tisear'h Pflnehcya'l 993 and the Ruies, 1994. As ;i«the 15 et iost coRfidence m -he Detitioner, R'QS ccrried agoinst hsr. Now, cominy to the ssrvics i^f 'notics, sub-rule (3) of Ruie 3 of th® shoutd be dsspatched by the pr'escr'ibsd uie (3) of Rule 3 does not .•'equires that i-he noties should be servsd on sech |and every ra.zmbsr, -'-•e only reouirerasnt ig thst •i'hs notice hcs to be despat; this case, tha noties was cirecdy! petitiorie," w-iere present in the meetii hed ssven dcs^s bs;o"s th'2 tTisstir-^. Zn desssl'chsd, 15 wambars 'sxcest •i'he na and uncnimous fesolution fsss possed. Thsrefore, the'qround rsised by ths ^etitioner that the notice wcs not servad upon hsr ig dsvoid of merit. As tar cs ths soi^t I'hot tn'^ 6v e oeTSTioner', accft every me ccn^ot bs $s!d. thct 'the pstltlonsr1 '^iBS^S^ pstitionsr was deprived t"om spsal'.i",g durira "he no eonfiiience fflotion is cdncarned. the eori'er' notic®wos receivsd hiber of tha Panchcy'st wss <wa.*e af the nisetsng and that is why, exsept the petitionsr, evsry' ffiembei- rarssined presen+ iri the msstinc. and unsnimoijiS rssoiution wos passsd. Thsrefor-a, it wss nc't hsylng th.e k?iow!ed9s of ths (^y^) XI-HC-22 3f1^T?iT R-fi+sn^r Sht|i«bfl1^cT smo 3ST "i||<)|ciq, (SiTflu'16, Rjirliyy 3T1^?T M^ch ii*ini sfrRrai^•^••^•^•^^200^ ^^ a-n^i CTCTTW afer ~5~-1 msetinq, QS such, there is sppearing and speakin9 in ths ^ sbssnt on he" own. As fc" cs the ascision cn ;n The first ingtancs, lecrnsd aware whether as on data the thst ths writ petition is bein< whethsr the reference has bsen Zn the r'esult, the writ pe^ dismissed and it is hsreby dismis| +h£rerai!i be no order as to costsl. Interim order dated 16-6- Conseq'J£ntiy,M.(W.)P.No.j and 7029/2006 stand disoosed o1 ^raferiN'WRffffte^t rfSfRTC ^STf^iTsn^r ^uiis+ion of d£pr-]yin9 the petitioner fron* |neetin9. Tne petitioner herseif remained fhe "efsrence by ths Colieztor is coRcsr.ied, couitsal for the petitioner submits thet hs is not r^farsnce is not decidad or not. Apsrt from ^ecided on merit, ther-efore, it is ir'retevant Bseided or not. i-ition is dayoid of merit, sama is liabia to be ied, st the ddmission stcqe 'tself. However', -|200& granted by this Court stands vacated. ,.^818/2006,1.A.Nos.6811/2006,7028/2006 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^it) ^ w