HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETJTIQNIR RESPQNDENTS k. WR!T PiTITION (C) N0.40T2 OF 20Q8 Umashankar Nirala, S/o Shrl Sant Ram, aged about 38 years, viilage Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bijaigarh, District Raipur (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat and Sodal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur (CG). 2. Specified Officer/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG). 3. - Gomti Baj, W/o Radheshyam Shriwas, aged about 40 years. 4. Amrika Bai, W/o Shyam Lal, ageci about 35 years. 5. Siyaram, S/o Kartik Ram , aged about 37 years, Upsarpanoh, Biiaigarh, 6. Anup Bal .laiswal, W/o TiRaram JaiswaS, ageci about 30 years. 7, Bhojram <JaJswal, S/o Mudiya Kalar, aged about42years. 8. Smt. Suman Devi Agrawal, W/o Sudesh Agrawal, aged about 35 years. 9 Bodhin Bai, W/o Puni Ram, aged about 43 years. 10 Harmendar Singh, S/'o Tejaswi Pratap Singh, aged about 36 years. 11. Peer Khan, S/o Amir Khan. aged about 40 years. 12. Gore Lal, S/o Late Kartik Ram Khutte, aged about 43 years. 13. Naresh Kumar, S/o Ishwari Dewangan, aged about 26 years. 14. Ram Kumar, S/o Shatrughan, aged about 37years. 15. Shiv Lal. S/o Ram DayaJ Sahu, aged about 40 years. 16. Urmila Devi, W/o Baharta Sahu,aged about 42 years. Respondents No. 3 to 16 are residents of village Biiaigarh, District Raipur (CG). (Writ petjtipn under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SingSe Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. :'1^ -L^ ••\ £ ?;^ l""li : Prssent: Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Go\/t. Advocate for the State/respondents N0.1&2. Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate with Shri Rakesh Pandey, counseS for respondents No.7 & 11. ORAL-ORDER . (Passed on this28th day ofJuIy,2S08) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction that the proposed no confidence motion to be heid on 29l July, 2008 be quashed. 2) Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a certifjcate as required under sub-ruie (2) of Rute 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Ziia Panchayat Ke President Tatha VJce- President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Nlyam, 1994 (herelnafter referred to as "the Ruies, 1994") was not issued hy the prescnbed authority. On recejvjng the notice, the Prescnbed Asjthority Is required to issue a certificate stating the date on whjch hour and at v^iich the notjce has been gjven to hlm and shais acknowtedge its receipt. Leamed coimsel further submits that the Secretary of Gram Psnchayat was required to commiinicate the notlce to the Panchas of the concerned vltlage seven days before the meeting. Thus, there is procedurai lapse and, as such, the petjtlon desen/es to be allowed. 3) Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.7 & 11 submite that the Prescribed Authority has issueci a certificate as required undersub-rule (2) of Ruie 3 of the Rutes, 1994 and thereafter notice was sent under the signature of the Prescribed Authority to all the Panchas including the Sarpanch on 17-7-2008 stating that, no confidence motion was proposed to be hdd on 29th Juty, 2008, Tuesday at 12.00 Q' dock 0'uesday) at the assembiy hali of Janpad Panchayat, BiSalgarh Learned counse! would further submit that in order to mfeSead the Court the petltioner has kept back the copy of notice jndicating certificate and infoFmation to the Panchas, A copy of the notlce sent to aiS the members Including the Sarpach was produced before thls Court @nd the same is ta.ken on recorct. 4) On reading of the notice, it appears that the petitioner-Sarpanch has declined to accept the notice as js endorsed by the Assistant Gram Panchayat Officer, Gram Panchayat, BKaigarh, in presence of Sital and Prakash, Panchayat employees. Thus, the submission of the petitioner that Rule 3 (2) ofthe Rules, 19p94 has riot been complied with, and, as -z" such, "no confidence motion" is bad and deserves to be dlsmissed, is misconcejved. It appears that the petitioner has suppressed the relevant documents cieliberately to mislead the Court and mjsuse the judicia! process. This hab'rt of suppression of facte in order to obtain order deserves to be condemned. Thus, this petltion is dismissed summarily wlth a cost quantifiecS to be a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) 5) Consequently, application (S.A.Np.1/2008) for grant of interim relief stands dlsposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i)