fi^n^Ti ^A. s ^ i^^Ss (AppeUac1 eciKs-ni iLincisn, iS/o yiin C.js.inct yingl'i Satnami, aged about 31 yeai's,. Sarpaiich, o! Gram Panchsyar Bhendra; Resident of Viila.gs-Rucis.; Tslisil-aundsrdshi; Dist.-Dun (C.G.) 1. itate of Chhattisgai-h thnaugh the Additional Cotlector, Durg ,District-Durg(C, G.) 2. The Sub-Dmsional Officer (R) & Prescribed Authority Patan Head Office, Durg Distt, Durg (C.G.) 3. The Naib Tahsildar (Returning Officerj Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. Secretary Gram Panchayat Bhendra, Tahsii- Qunderdehi^ Distfc. Durg(C.G.) Narsingh Sahu, Up-Sarppjich unt. Rupat.in 3ai^ Panch, Rupeshv.'ai- Koreebada, Panch Smt. Bisari Bai, Panch. Shri Gaukaran Yadav, Panch Smt, Qsdawari 3ai, Panch Harish Chandra Joshi, Panch T2. Baldev Ram^ Panch 13, Smt, Anita Barle, Panch 14. RamlaS Thakur, Panch 15. Smt. Kumari Bai Panch, respondent No.5 to 15 are resident of Gram Panchayat Bhendra, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5. 6, 8. 0 10 1 1 1 t% f»<3 ^^^- ^.^g^?fl3 «dsM^J< Shri Rewa Shankar Patel, coiinsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. Heard. By this petitiou uuder Article 227 of tlie Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned fSie order dated 28th Februaiy 2008 passed by teanied Additional CoUector, Durg, whereby fh.e refereuce under Section 21(4) ofthe Panchayat Raj Adhmiyaiii (for short 'Adhiniyain') by fhe petitioner agaiust flie resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' against him has been dismissed. 2. Case ofthe petitioner is that, he is elected Sarpanch ofGx^im Panchayat, Bhendra, BIock- Guaclerdehi, District Diu-g. Up- iarpanch and other Panchas of the said Grani Paucliayat s-abinitted 'No Coufidence Motion' beft)re the Pi^scribed Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional OfBcer, who fixed the date for consideRition of '-»< {? fS 'No Confidence Motion* against the petitioner on 5th June 2007 aad appointed Naib Tahsildar as Presiding Officer for conductiiig 'No Con&deace Motion, Notice was issued to the Paiichas for couvening the nieetuig of No Confidence Motion' inentioued that a meetuig is to be held on 5ttl June 2007 at abo-ut 12:00 uoon, however, the proceedings were mitiated at 11:00 a.m. and in the said meeting, No Confidence Motion agaiast the petitioner was passed wifh the majority of 12 Panehas out of fhe total 15 Paachas. The reference iinder Sectiou 21 (4) ofAdh.miyaiu.was also rcjected by the leamed Additioual CoUector by tjie impiigned ord.er, 3. The groiuid taken by the petitioner in tiiis petition is tliat the uieetiiig was coavened in contraveution of the inandatoiy provision ofRule 3 (3) & Rule 5 (5) ofthe Madhya Pradesh Paiichairat (Gram Panchayat Ke Saqianch Tatha Up-Sarpaiich, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zfla Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh A-vishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (for short *tlie Act of 1994'), as fhe tiiae inentioned in the uotice ofAnnexure P-2 about the ineetuig to consider No Confideuce Motioii' was 12:00 ucrou on 5,6.2007, however fiie meetiug was coiamenced at 11:00 a.in. It was further argued that as per Riile 5 (5) of the Act of 1994 it was the duty of the Presiding Oflicer to caB the members present iii thc meetmg on.e by one aiid haaclover flie baUot papers d~uly signed by liim and to explaia that the meDiber who is ia favoru- of the proceedmgs of uiotion sb.aU affix syiabol [''!) aad fhe ineniber who wants to vote agaiast the motion shaU afiix symool 'X'. Howe.ver, no such exercise was canied oiit dtinng the uieetuig by the Presiding Qfficer. Reliaace is placed oti the matter of ^ S-3' 13 -ass^ =.±iass-^1 4. I liRve tieard. lesimed couiiscl fbr tlic p£trti€;s. From perusai of fhe copy of relevaat pages of the register of Gi^ia Panchayat Bhendra iu which the proceedhigs of lueethig dated 5.6.2007 to consider fhe 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner lias been recorded, it is observed that in the said meeting all 14 Paiichas aiid the petitioner - Sarpaach parficipated iii the proceediiigs and. it also shows tliat the proceedings coHiDienced • 2000(4) M.P.H.T u9 1SE'sl«SS!'a5'SS^: at 11:00 a.m. iii place of 12:00 noon, However, no objection was igised by the petitioner or any other Panchas that the tinie of meeting has been pi^-poned by an hoiu', as according to the notice, Dieetuig was to couiinence froin 12;00 noon. 5. In tlie matter ofSmt. in Paragraph-8, it has been held thus- 8. The second part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 luandates that. the prescrftied authority aft.er fixiiig date, timc aad place of tlie. mccting witliin fhe prescri.bed period not later thau. 15 days as laid down iu thc first part of fhe Rule, stiaU cause dispatch of notice of such Bieetuig to every inember of flie Panctiavat 7 davs befofe tlie ineetmg. The said latter part of sub-mle (3) of Rule 3 of 1994 Rules is mandatory as intimation of date, tiine aiid place of nieeting to eveiy ineniber is essential to ensure his: presence, if he so desires. ui fhe meeting to be held on such vital issue ofpassing ofiio-coafiaeace niotion. 6. The puipose behiiid sendiag the notice of meeting 7 days in adv-Euice is niandatory in order to ensure that fhe m.em.bers aj-e pi''esexxt iu. sucli inectLiig, if tliey so clesii^. Thus, tjic only purpose for incorporatiu.g the above provision is that the Bieetmg is convened after due noti.ee to atl thc uieinbers. In the uistaiit case, it is not ia disp'ate that aB the nieinbers are preseiit aucl they p3i~t[cip%ted iii tlie soid. lo.eetiiig witliout aiiy oljjection, as reflected froia fhe order of uo-confidence can'ied out against the petitioner, aiid fherefore in the considered opuiioii ofthis Court, only because the tiine was advanced from 12:00 noon to 11:00 a.ni. by the Pi^sid-itig Offlcer for coiiductuig tlic prc'ceeding, the sa.uie woulcl uot ii'i'vsdidsitc proceediiigs of No Confi.dence Motioii agaiiist uie petitiouer, as ao prejudice was caused to tlie petitioner on tlie gro'and of advaiicing the time by an boru, It is not open to fhe petitioner to chaBenge the proceedings of No Coufidcuce Motion, particulsirly wheii he hiiaself participated ui the nieetiiig witliout aiiy objection. 7. So far as the otlier ground tliat there is a violation of sub-rLile (5) of Rule 5 of the Rules 1994 is concenied, there is no objection th.a.t flierc wa,s o^y confu.sioii siiiongst the luembers wifh respect to fhe nianner ui which tliey were to cast their v'ote neither tliere is aaytliin.g iri record to show .ffaat the ew^-i 01-iiliil petitioner or auy inember of the Panchayat raised any objectiou ui this reeard befQi^e the Picsidiag OfBcer duriiig 'No Coufidence Motion' proceedings. !n these circutmstances, ! am of the considered opinion fhat there is no groiind avaUable to the petitioner to iinpiigu fhe 'No Confideuce Motion' passed agauist hiin by the said Panchayat which was carried out by majority of 12 Paachas of the total stre.ngth of 15 Paachas of&e Gram Kuichayat, Bhendra. 9. In the rcsult, the petition beuig devoid ofsubstance is liable to be dismissed and is accoidingly hereby dismissed at fhe admission st^e itself. ' l Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge BW ^^^^ E^^^s SS^!';-'^ t^&w& '^^s: ^ws sa ill^ BIB i^^^'9 U9 EBS a ^tL^ .._.::.. ......_...^_ au