IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH w. P. No. .....G;%T.t....(2oo& PETITIONER z / Ramod Kumar Nishad, S/o Gorelal Nishad Aged about 26 years, Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat Parswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur R/o Village Parswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh ESPONDENTS : /1. 03 yégifrg> «‘9‘ “q.“ k M Through: Secretary ‘ ‘ we“ Panchyat Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur C.G. & N’ Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) / 3. Sub—Divisional Officer Lormi, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) ’Secretary Gram Panchyat Paré‘sWara, Tahsn Lormi, District Biiaspuy C.G. Patiram Dhruve Up—sarpaneh Greim Panchyat Parswara, S/o Chandu Ram Dhurve aged about 28 years, R/ o Tahsil Lormi, District Bila spur. Saiikram Dhurve S/O Kanglu Gond aged about 35 Years, Ganeshi Dhurve S/o Mukund aged about 35 Years, Smt. Kumari Dhurve W/o Salikram Dhurve aged about 34 years. Jhanglu S/o Latel Gond aged about 40 years. i3 g R é) Q S/o Smt. Krishna bai W/o Parsram Dhurve aged about 28 years. Vinesh Kumar Yadav Nanduram Yadave agéd about 32 years. /,12.. Deo Kumar S/o Janiram Dhruve aged about 32 years. 13. Labho Baiga S/o Malhai aged about 45 years /14. Smt. Sita Bai W/o Pardhi aged about 45 yeears /15.. Tula Singh S/o Jagat aged about 35 years Smt. Sushila Bai W/o Satiram aged about 45 years. 6 to 16 are'the Panch of Gram Pancbyat Parswara and R/o Parswara R/oTahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur, C.G. RIT PETITION UNDER ARTIbLE 226 (g. Z OF THE CONSTITUTION a OF INDIA / V W XI-HC-22 Ms Deepali Pandey, c unsel for respondenfs No.1 1'0 3 / STafe. Shri MK Bhaduri, coun el for responden‘rs No.5 1'0 14. None for ofher respon ems. Heard. Up-Sarpanch and o‘rhe Ponchos of Lormi, Dis‘l‘ - Bilaspur made cm applicafion To respo denf No.3 To convene a meefing of l No Confidence Mo‘rion. On ir opplicoTion, responden‘r No.3 — Sub-Divisionol Officer Lor i, appoin‘l’ed Tehsildar, Lormi as presiding Officer and direc ed him To convene a meeTing on 20.10.2006 aT 12 noon in Pan hayo‘i‘ Bhavan; accordingly, noTices were issued. Learned Presi ing Officer convened mee‘ring of No Confidence MoTion on 2 .10.2006 and in Tha‘r mee‘l’ing, No Confidence MoTion was pass d b'y a majoriTy of Ten voTes, and The proceedings were re ed by The Presiding Officer. PeTiTioner, feeling aggrieved raised his dispuTe in accordance wiTh 5ec1'ion 21 (4) of Pmchaya‘i' Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. AfTer due hearing, impugned order da‘i'ed 08.112006 has been passed by The AddiTionai Coiiecfor, Biiaspur. All The grounds raised before The AuThoriTy have W) e c d 1mm mam WWH%H WW§WW 35W511éw 08.01.2007 Shri RK Jain, counsel or fhe pe'l'ifioner. XI—HC—22 mam mm been considered, reasoned md speaking order has been passed by fhe Addi‘l’ionnl Collector, Bilnspur. FeeHng aggrieved, This Wri‘r Pefifion. During fhe course of argument learned counsel for The peTi‘lioner confended Tha‘l’ pe i‘rioner was no1' allowed To speak in 'l'he meeTing and Tha‘l’ being Pradesh/Chha‘Hisgarh Panch yaT (6mm Panchaya‘r ke Sarpanch “rafha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad anchaya‘l’ Ta‘l'ha Jila Panchaya‘l' ke Adhyaksh faiha Upadhyak h ke virudh Avishwas Prasfav) Niyaml 1994 (henceforTh 'Th Niyam 1994'), The No Confidence Mo‘rion passed by The Panch aT is bad in law as also The order passed by The AddiTional Coll cTor is illegal. On The oTher hand, learned counsel for The resp ndenTs conTended ThaT peTiTioner was presenT in The meeTing and he was asked To address if desired; .buT The peTiTioner himself declined To address The meeTing. CerTified copy of order as also phoTocopy of proceedings of meeTing held on 20.10.2006 have been annexed along wiTh The peTiTion. om The perusal of boTh These documenTs, iT is evidenT T aT in accordance wiTh Rules, a meeTing was convened and peTiTioner in accordance wiTh Tw) e r e XI-HC-22 WWW Rules was aHowed 1’0 speak i Mo‘tion was passed by a huge In view of Thenbove, I or perversi'fy has been done passed by 1'he AddH-ional Cc from any illegalify or pem inferference by This Cour? E Cons‘l'ifufion of India. The dismissed and is accordingiy d No cosfs. ‘/ a n The meefing and No Confidence najori‘fy of voTes. am of fhe opinion ThaT no iliegaiify in fhe proceeding and 1'he order ilecfor, Bilaspur' does no? suffer versify which may c'ail for any ry s‘repping in ArTicle 226 of The ,refore, pe‘ri‘rion is iiabie ‘ro be ismiw Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge (@W) i P