@ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU‘R (c.G.) w.P. (c1 N§g9 of 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS \wZl-i"${ Wow“ WW K5 \0\ Mohd. Safiq Khan, s/o-Late Abdul Hamid Khan , aged about-37 years , vice-president ,Janpad Panchayat Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.), VERSUS J 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) gw 2 w 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.), / 4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / k ( Commissioner, Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), 5. /Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.), HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT RH [ASPI JR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 5959 of 2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Raghavendm Pradhan with Shri Harsh Mahant, Advocate for the palilioner. Shn' hAjit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4. O R D E R (Passed on 30“; day of September, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16.09.2011 (Annexure P/l), whereby the Commissioner, Raipur Divisiom Raipur, has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against. the order dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner further challenges the order dated 14.06.2011 & 17.06.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Sub Divisional Olficer, Gariyaband and Collector, Raipur, respectively, and the no confidence motion dated 14.06.20 11 (Annexure P/3). Shri Pradhan, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Vice President of Janpad Panchayat. Gariyaband. An application was made by the members of the Janpad Panchayat to the Collector for bringing a no-eonfidence motion against the petitioner on 27.05201 1, pursuant to which the proceedings were initiated on 27.05.2011 and the Chief Executive Ohicer. Janpad Panchayat, Gariyaband, was directed to take necessary steps as provided under law. The S.D.O. Gariyaband PETI'HONER : Mohd. Safiq Khan. VER SI ES RESPONDENTS : State of Chha‘nisgarh & Others. presided over the meeting for the no-confldence motion. Shn’ Pradhan further submits that only the infonnalion regarding the meeting was given to the petitioner but the charges leveled against. the petitioner were not, supplied to him and notice was also not. given in time. The petitioner objected before the Collector on 09.06.2011 alleging that without. deciding the objection, the meeting of no-contidence motion was held on 14.06.2011 itself. Thus, the whole proceeding of no-confidence and the orders passed pursuant-thereto, are null and void and deserve to be quashed. On the other hand, Shri Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that. out of 15 members, 14 voted in favour ofno- confidence motion and only one voted in favour of the petitioner. Thus, there was a. clear majority and the motion was passed by more than 3/4 which is the requirement of law. Thus, there is no error in the proceedings. as alleged by the petitioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Election is the basic pillar of the democratic set. up. A candidate who participates in the election process gets elected by majority of votes polled in his favour. In a. similar way, when a. no-confidence motion is carried against an elected candidate, and the motion is carried out by a. clear majority, the same cannot be held as illegal merely on the ground of some technical defects and the allegations made by the petitioner, which are not supported by any documentary evidence, or otherwise. w WM This Court, in Ghansmmm Yadav v. Rameshwar Sahu & Otherx’ held that no prejudice, whatsoever is caused in any manner when the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority. Thus, no confidence motion cannot be declared as null and void. In the instant case, 14 members voted in favour of the no-confidence motion and only 1 candidate voted in favour of the petitioner, thus, it. is clear that the members of the Janpad Panchayat have lost faith in the Vice President, and thus, he was removed by can’ying no- confidenee motion. The petitioner had full notice and he participated in the proceedings. If any objection was raised, that appears to have been rejected before initiating no confidence motion against him, which resulted into passing of the no confidence motion by more than 3/4”“ majority. In view of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNH'IORI Judge 12007 (2) BLJ 181 _.,__