\^ ^-oEf ^jMKnq^ ^Tll^^Ko, [®|<rlH^< HWVll (K<11<^» •W[ 200 ^V^ T^F (llclt^<i?) 311^1 ^T ^Jcb ^WT 3iT^??T sF1RW liiNiuiiini wnw^ftn ^n^r S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRET<DRA MISHRA, J W.P^lClNo cM<llCT<fll 'RTR^Tf ^ 1!^^t <Ftt^l< ^stfiPT^TI^T 3146pf2008 Writ petition under Articlel 226/227 ofthe Constitution of PETITIONER [ndia Versus RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. Smt. Nema Bai W/o. Chhotu Satnaini, aged about 55 years, Elected Sarpanch, Grain Panchayat Eranishahi, Tahsil Navagarh, District-Durg (CG) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy, Panchayat & Rm-al Depai'tment, DKS Bhawaii, Raipm- (CG) The Additional Collector, Bemetai'a, Dist^t Durg (CQ) The Sub Divisional Officer & Presiding Ofilcer, Bemetara, Disti-ict DLirg (CO) The Naib TahsUdar, Nandghat, M<K, Donde, Tahsil-Navagarh, District-Dm'g (CG) Vuiod Sharma, Up-sarpanch, Qram ^T^^T ^f?[ ^uiiooq, —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. T^r ^i^icn^, ^til<H^(o, [®j<ni^^< < *ll*«yll 5h*lich ^ 200 ^n^i ^r RTiich TT8TT 3T^?T 9ti^i<^ ^V^ 1c^RT ( ^I^<^T) ^T^fer^ ^w^rf ^F feT^ 'tf^r^R '^'3Tf7R W^? Panchayat-Eramshahi, Block Ofiice-Navagarh, District-Durg Duidayal Sahu, Panch, Lalaraia Sahu, Panch, Rajkumar Dehariya, Paiich^ Shiv Prasad Dheemar, Panch. Dhaniram Sahu, Paiich, Binda Bai Sahu, Paiich Jethiya Bai Devangan, Panch, Durpati Bai Sahu, Panch, Ishwari Bai Sahu, Panch, Res.no. 6 to 14, R/o-Gram Panchayat, Eranishalu, Block SiT^T '^RT fqil<=t» ^TOT ^H^T n»*iich ^ '3"^ ^i^Krt^, ^•al<-j^(o, [®i<ni<ri^< *11*1CTI CT»*1(Ct» •W^ 200 ^H^T ^WK (x^t^S^) I^ITW^rf^T 3iTI^T 3 15. 16. 26.6.2008 Mr. FS Ivhare, counsel f(j Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt, Eramshahi, Block-Navagarh, cM^f^^l^ 'RW^f ^ 'feTSt ^^K ^3TfiPT3?T^T Office-Navagarh, Distirict-Durg (CG) Secretaiy, Graiii Paiichayat-Eraiiishalii^ Block Office-Navagarh, District Durg (CG) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Navagarh^ District Durg (CG) |r the petitioner. lAdvocate for the State, The petitiouer was elect^d Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tahsil-Bemetara, Distt. Durg <<No Confidence Motion" ^Tas m.oved a^mst her by, respondents No. 5 to 14 vid|e application of Annexure P/2 dated 31.12.2007, submitt^d before Uie Sub Divisional Officer, Bemetara. The Sub Dp.visional OfG.cer after exauiinmg the application of Annexure y/2 and after satisfyiiig himself that the sanie was nioved ui |accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Uie Chhattisgarh Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanct| anchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke L, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Pauchavat Ke President Tafcha Vice-President Ke Virudh ?I^^T ^N ^uii^, o^i^iid —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. f ?S3< :iw? 3TI^T'3pT ^jcb H^T 5TR?T st)Hl<=h ^ '3'^r ^i^Kn^, ^til^^Ko, f®<c>ii^^< WHdT^tW^ •^200 3TI^5T rfs^K ( yl^^) F^TTW ^rf^T 3?T^fT ^ Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, fbied tiie time aad date for consideration of ^No Confldt Tahsildar, Nandghat Presid4 Accordingly, the order dat^ Chief Executive Ofiicer, serve the notice of meetmg Panchayat through Secreta4 Meettag of fhe Panc] 15.1.2008 at 12.00 noon Officer. In the above meei ^T^fei^H 'RT^ff ^f "fe^ Tf^R^T? c^^tRR ^^ 1R94 (for brevity the Rules, 1994?) E(ieetmg of the Gram Panchayat for ^nce Motion" and appointed Naib ^ig Ofiicer to conduct the meeting. fd 1.1.2008 was passed and the Ja^ipad Panchayat was directed to |on Sarpanch and m-embers of the and notices were issued. [layat was held at Eramsahi on |as scheduled bv the Prescribed |ing, 10 members out of total 11 members participated aa(l all voted in favour of the resolution. However, the 1 members of the Panchayatj etitioner rematned absent m the meeting. The Presidiiig Ojfflcer held that the number of than three-fourth of the m^mbers present •& voting and tiie same was more fhaii two-1 the Panchayat. Accordinglyj "No Confidence Motion" pas| The Presidmg Officer| copy of the resolution to | voting for the Motion, was niore ^hird of the Panchas constituting the Presiduig Officer declared the ^ed. submitted his report along with ^ub Divisional Officer, Benietara, \ ^^%^^%;"' '3-5£[ ^l^Krt^, ^1(l1<-l<l<o, f®lcll<!H'4,< *<I*ICTI d»*iicr» "^200 3TT^?T TT^F (^rf33f^) 3T1^T 'spl f<»li<=b WT 3TT^T sti^iot) ^?nw ^fer STT^T who declared flie post of Sarp|i Chief Executive Officer to han^ to Up-sarpanch. The petitioner filed refere: CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, before the Additional CoUector by the impugned order dated 5t |ice under Section 21(4) of fhe (1993 (in short the Act, 1993?) ^nd the same was also rejected June, 2008 of Amiexure P/ 1. itll This petition has been fi^ the ground that no notice, as Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, wa^ menibers ofthe Panchayat as 1| on record to show that fhe nQti^es petitioner and members of the| non-compliance of the manda^ the entire proceedings. Reliance is placed in Dewangcin Vs. State of M.P. Bench ofthe M.P. High Court. '2000(1) M.P.H.T. 69 (FB) cM^(<n41i 'RW^Tf ^f fs^ <r'it^i< ^3?Rm3TT^T anch vacant and directed the over fhe charge of Sarpanch ed by the petitioner solely on 'equired under sub-i-ule (3) of 5 issued to the Sarpanch and here is no document available were, in fact, issued to fhe Panchayat and thus, there is :ory provisions, which vitiates :he matter of Smt. Bhulin cind cthers1 decided by Fiill + 4 T YJ ~3^r ^i^Kn^, ^til<4^i<o, f^<rii^^< *11*1(rll (hHlch "^ 200 3T1^I TR^' (<lclI^<^T) W^T ^T R'lJoh TT^T 3^?T $b*liob ^^TW^TT 3TT^?T ^ I have heard the leamed gone through the material impugned order. avatlable From perusal of the d petition, it is seen that in cc 31.12.2007 the Chief Executn Navagarh was directed to meeting of Gram. Panchaya Confidence Motion" through members of the Panchayat. sarpaach and all the nine participated in the meettng resolution. In fhe matter of Smt. Bhui that the latter part of sub-rule which lays down that tiie nol caused to be dispatched by th^ secretaiy ofthe Graai Panchay of date, time and place of essential to ensure his prese| meeting to be held on such cni<<(<n<fli 'HFT^Jf ^f fe^ <r»i^i< ^3tf?PT37T^T ^ounsel for the petitioner and on record including fhe t)cuinents annexed with ttie ^mpliance of the order dated (e Ofiicer^ Janpad Panchayat^ efifect service of notice of fhe for consideration of "No (secretary on Sarpanch aiid Except fhe petitioner, Up- |members of the Panchayat ^ind voted in favour of tihie |m Dewangan1 it has been held (3) of Rule 3 of Rules, 1994, |ice of such meeting shall be Prescribed Aufhority through ^t, is mandatory as intunation tneetuig to every member is tice, if he s6 desires, in the |vital issue of passing of "No + ~3~^ ^II^IKn^, ^Tl1<H41<o, [®l<r1J<4li< ^ IWVll »*<|C|> "^l 200 ^?r TR^F (<iq(^<^T) ^T^T ^T ftl^Jcb 'WT 3TT^?T sh^w i?^nw ^ft^ ^TT^T Confidence Motion". It ha^ word 'dispatch? ui the Rule is| ou non-service of notice of the consideration of meetu^g should not be frustrated, asj depends on existence of fhe r( is validly passed by the requ}. of notice of meeting on oue or| the passing of^No Coufideuce| been further held that use of 1 clearly wifti a view that merely m^eting on one or few meuibers, of <<No Confidence Motion" in any case the passmg of it ^quisite majority. If the Motion }.site iiiajority^ m.ere uon-service few members would not render IMotion" invalid. Thus, from fhe material that the Prescribed Officer Officer, Janpad Panchayat, members of the Panchayat p receiving the notice and Therefore^ coutention of fhe issued to niembers of the or)i<i{ci<i1i ^i^<?iT ^ fs^ <f^i^i< ^r ^tRrn 3:n^r available on record, it is evident directed the Chief Executive /-. Navagarh to issue notice to members of the Panchayat a^id except the petitioner, all 10 irticipated in the meetiug after roted against the petitioner. petitioner that no notice was Panchayat and there is non- compliance of sub-rule (3) of ^ule 3 of the Rules, 1994, is not borne out from the document^ filed by the petitioner and the petitioner has failed to establijsh fhat there is non-compliance ofniandatoiy provisions ofsu|3-nile (3) ofRule 3 ofthe Rules, 1994. ?IR:[^T ^N 55[UT1^T' -FS/197—3/2008—40,000. ^^^T ^T ^II^, TOW^ —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. 3H^T ^T'ftpTN? 'TOT 3TT^T sb^ich (</ T^T ^ii^i<n^, ^Tii^^Ko, [®i<ni^^< *11*1CTI n)*<iq'» •WT. 200 ^TT^T 'q^r (yif^^) 1^<TTW^teT3^T ts On fhe basis of aforesaid considered opinion that thet jurisdictional eiTor committ4 Bemetara, Distt. Durg, whil^ which waiTants interference tn. Articles 226/227 ofthe Const|ltution analysis, this Court is of the t-e is no illegality, infu'mity or ^d by the Additional Collector, ^ passuig fhe impugned order, ^n. exercise of jurisdiction under of India. In the result, the in^ substance deserves to be dismissed at the admission stfe.; No order as to costs. °M<<f<yi<i1i *ii^<r?l ^F 'fe^t <r'i^i< '^3TRm3n^T ^tant petition being devoid of ^lismissed and is accorduigly, ^.ge itsetf. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^i^cQ^ ^t^T ^uil^, <M^i<4li<=l —FS/197—3/2008—40,000.