. _I_§ THE HIGH EOURT OF €HHATTISGARH AT BI LASPUR wRI'r PETITION wo§M3 /2001 PETIQLQNER Vsmtmrmila Bai,w1fe of nauram aged about 37 years, sarpanch, Gram Panchayat - KhajuriiBlock Balo da Bazar, DIS%rict Raipurg chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1o Additional aollector, Baloda Ba zar, district , Raippr ,Chhattis- Garh . Rgspo gDEN'rs 2. suib Divisional officer (Revenue) Balo da Bazar,district Raipur, chh‘attis garh a Tehsildar . Baloda Bazar, ( Returning officer for c‘oiIduCt of No confidence mtion ) pistt. Raipur.€hhattisgarh o 4. Ramesh son of sonuram,Up sar- panch, Gram Panchayat Khajuri Block Baloda Bazar,distt.Raipur Clihatt i5garh . 5. Jagdish son of Budhiram 6. Budhar son of Jhaduram 7. Thamram son of Karamadas Ramadhar son of Trilochén, 9. Hem son of Sadhram /\. The pe'rifioner' while serving (ins Sarpanch was removed by a No Confidence Mofion taken up on 11.9}.2001. An appeal was preferred by The wrif pe-rifioner before The §Appellafe Authority - Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar and a prayer was made before the Appellate i Authority to grant stay of the molrion and a direction to allow the l rejected, hence this petition unde Article 226 of the Constitution of India. writ petitioner to continue as Sarjanch. However, this prayer was Shri Prashant 'Mishra has suljmitted that a case which arose in a similar situation was dealt with by the Madhya Pradesh High Court as regards the application of provi ion of sub section 2 of section 21 of Panchayat Raj Adhi’niyam and ’ru e 5 of the No ConfidenceMotion Rules, 1994 and the said Court cam to the conclusion that statutory right “of the Sarpanch under sub ection 2 of section 21 cannot be whittled down by any means includirllg majority of they member's. XI_HC.22 a‘u‘i W, Wm, W ants? M‘ wimm LO?N09«1 i 1x 20m Wig Ef'qgegg WEST mm ifs?! ‘ a: 311%“? m A 23.11.2001 l Heard 5hri Proshant Mistra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Shri Deep Keshorwani, learned, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. r ‘ w 3".) mmmw WWW ’1%Q%W $Wm x 50,000. GRPRJ—FS/3 l 1 1/2001 The comemion is made >on #he ground that though *he wriT petitiongiad a right to speak at the time of No Confidence Motion he did n01- have such a r'ighT a1' a relevant time to defend himself and to place his case before the House It seems the Presiding Officer had not asked the writ petitioner to state what he Wished to say before thew—of No Confidence was taken up. According to Shrl Prashant Mishra, tne writ petitioner ought to have been asked to speakg‘during the proceedings inasmuch as othermse the writ petitioner would have, lost a very important right urder the relevant proVisions stated above. Be ThaT as if may, in my view, since fhe wrif pefifioner' has already filed appeal before the Competent Authority, the Appellate aspect of ‘rhe ma’rfer' and pass ”’1 r ‘Author‘ity should examine eve necessary orders on merit. In *he few facfs and circ msmnces I have stated above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of rejection to allow an interim relief. However, let he appeal now pending before the Appellate Authority be decide expeditiously and at any rate not later than one month from the ate of receipt of this order In The result wrrh The a ove observations and direc’nons this petitionjs rejected. Sd/«i Chief Justice ihat was taken up against him,