w^ ''y3?ys'SS':M3v^:'S C^'i^0^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JTJDICATuRE CHHATnSGARH AT BIIASPUR W.P.fQNO. ^^(°, / 2006 J-'eUUoner A^•^ ^tl-- '.v??'/<'fe.-''' .••••'"^•<v'%i1 • ^y ^6' ^- JH.QTi i^ajn S./o Banthu Rarn Ao'^d flhmit 36 vpara K/o viuage yinghitana, JJloclc — LaKjianpur, Tehsil - Ambikapur, Dist: Sarguja-fC.G.) Resnnnnpn t<a 1. State of Chha.ttisgarh. 'l'nrougti - 'l'ne yecretary, Pancnayat U.K.y. Utiawan Raipur- (C.G.) 2. The Collector iSargLya-(C.U.j 3. Th.e Ci'iief Executivc Officcr^ AinDiicapi-ir, Dist: Sarguja-fC.G.) 4. T'he Nayao 'ren.siidar, LaKfianpur, Dist: sarguja-(C.O.) 5. 'l'i'ie becretaxy VLll8.ge — i^anciia.ya.t Singtiitana, Lakhanpur, Dist: Sarguja-(C.Q.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 / 227 OF THE CCWSTTTUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 11*1(11 ShHltft Q^ 3^'3nqT?pT, ®T(IWI<D,Rldltiy M(c) ^o. ^ 7/5/2^)-6 /^ 200 3<l^i?l ia«h 3TI^5T W R-li* cwan^TshHi'o TOnw^if?tT3n^T 11.10.2006 ShriA.N. Pandey, couns^: Shri Satish Gupta, D^ respondent No. 1 to 4 011 advaijice Arguinents on adiuissiorj Order dictated as foUows): 'niitfi'n-i ii»«fll^'tetA'<F»i+di< ^3rf^T3f1^?T :l for the petitioner. Govt, Advocate for the State/ teopy, heard. o ORDER 10. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. By way of ttus petition Constitution of India, the peti1] order dated 24.8.2006 by disniissed his dispute refen-ec^ (C.G.) Panchayat Raj Adlimiya^ The brief facts are that ^ after satisfying with the cont^ and fixed a date for 5.8.200q Graiu Paiichayat were piesent was declared invalid aud fhe ffled under Article 226/227 of the ioner has challenged the validily of Iwhfch fhe Uppei- CoUector has under Section 21 (4) of fhe M.P./ ^, 1993. notice of uo-confidence inotion was filed against the petitioner be|fore the Prescn'bed Auftiority, who uts of the notice of no confidence uiotion, issued notice for inee|tuig ou such inotion on 28.7.2006 . On 5.8.2006, all 18 members of . 15 nieuibers voted in favour of no confidence inotion, 2 votes w^rc cast agaiast ruotion aad 1 vote tnotion was held to be carried out, «! Against carrying out offhe saic^ raotion ou 5.8.2006, the petitiouer made a reference to fhe CoUe) :tor and ia fhe said reference, the mipugned order was passed a^ainst which the petitioner has. ffled XI-HC-78 *n*l<tt Sb*lich 3^^1141<'14, SiTnwiS, PlCII'My 1^1 ^.(t)Mo, ^7^/5-^0^ 200 3<I^S>1 4dcb (yiI^q^tT) an^rwf^iw (PIT 3f(i<i a>*fi<o S^fTWfllTO'OT^T this writ petition under Articjl India. Leamed counsel for fh4 naniely Snit, Sonhaliya had whereas, she had put thui^ib resolution, therefore, it appeai{ which vitiated the resolution. fhat in fhis regard no objeetio^ fhe Presiding OfEcer and ftt^l applieation or affidavit before vote aad soine forgeiy was concerued. He also argues fh; issued to tiie Panchas. tlim Cfc) In the opmion of tfus Cc to help the petitioner for the Section 21 (1) ofthe M.P. (C.G. resolution of no-confidence ino not less tfaan three fourth o niajority is more thau two tl constitutiug the Gram fulfiUed ia this case. PaiicU^yat In the present case, constituted by 18 Paachas aud of no-coufidence inotion and fhe niotion, whereas 2 of thera *l''<tt'l'ift-l t<W<'Tl'ffte<^t<fa]«l< ^isri^rsnSsr 226/227 of the Constitution of petitioner argues fhat one Panch signed on the first order-sheet inipression on the papers of that soiae forgeiy was comnutted Tbe CoUector has taken the view was taken by fhe petitioner before ther Sonkaliya has not filed any to say that she had not cast her imiuitted so far as her vote was t a clear notice of 7 days was iiot (urt, tiie arguinents are not going ^Teason that as per requireiuent of Paiicllayat Raj Adhitiiyam., 1993 a jtioa uiust be passed by niajority of the panchas present and such ^uid of total nuiuber of panchas for fhe tune beiug which is ^diuittedly, Gram Paiichayat was all 18 were present in the ineetuis p meiabers had voted in favour of had voted agamst. the niotion^Bd. XI-HC-78 3^ •<ii<iic»<i,OTnwis, Riwitiy -B'p'.cc) .^01.^7 /5A-°?^' 3n^'?r Ta^? (yt^'stsff) sn^T^rf^-Ti^ ipirsn^rsnim Vatti ^. ^ ^' gtfliw gfersii^r s one vote was deciai-ed as uivall less had voted in fa.vour of in<l voted in favour ofuiotion, the ^ be satisfied because 3/4th of l^ treated as 14, aad 2/3rd w| requirements were fulfiUed. Tl| i-eganluig notice is also not su^ on 28.7.2006 which was clearD nieeting of no-confidence uiotj There appeais to be no iIlegaKljy the CoUector. There is no uierits in this at the m.0tion stage. No Costs. <»>i<<F<'i<n-< t<i'«flTfftecfl'<Ri«i< ^Sf^irSD^T |d. Even ifwe hold fhat one person ^tion fhat is only 14 persons have •equireinent of Section 21(1) would would coine as 13.5 which inay be ould coine as 12 and both the ic secoad point which was raised taiaable because notice was issued before 7 days of proposed day for [on which was fixed for 5.8,2006. in the uiipugned order passed by petition and tlie saine is dismissed Sd/- Suni] Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O.