-F. DSViSiON BENCH SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Bharti Sonkar, W/o Ashwani • Sonkar, aged about 32 years, 'President, Nagar Panchayat : (Synderdehi District Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Environment and Urban Administration, Mantralaya, D.K.S. ihawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Coliector, Durg, District : Durg,. C-hhattisgarh. P. Tirkey, Deputy CoSIector, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh. '9, Election Commission, Through the Chief Electora! Officer, State Election Commission, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through the Chief Officer, Nagar Panchayat : Gunderdehi, District : Durg, Chh.attisgarh. Pramod Kumar Jain, S/o Kanwarlal Jain, Vice President / Councitlor, Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat : Gunderdehi, District : Durg, (..J/ 7. Smt. Vidya Devi, Councillor, Ward No. 14, Nagar Panchayat : 1C Gunderdehi, District Chhattisgarh. Durg, 8. Ramchand Kosaria, Councillor, Ward No. 3, Nagar Panchayat ; Gunderdehi, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 9. Desh Kumar Sonkaf, Councilior, Ward No. 7, Nagar Panchayat : Gunderdehi, District : Durg, . Chhattiogarh. \ 10. Jain Kufl^rBhandekar,Councillor, VVard No. ~10, Nagar Panchayat : Gunderdehi, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ; 11. Faheem Qureshi, Councillor,, Ward No. '11, Nagar Panchayat : Gunderdehi, Dlstrict : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 12. Rasida Tigaia, Councillor, Ward No. 8, Nagar Panchayat ; Gunderdehi, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 13. Umadeyi Yadav, Councillor, Ward No. 5, Nagar Panchayaf ; Gunderdehi, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 14. Rajesh Namdeo, Councillor, Ward No. 9, Nagar Panchayat Gunderdehi, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 15. Keshav Ram Sahu, Counciltor, Ward No. 13, Nagar Panchayat : Gunderdehi, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 16. Jeewan Lal Sonkar, Councilior, Ward No. 6, Nagar Panchayat : Gunderdehi, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. i 17. Sevyak Mahipal, Counciilor, Vtfard No. 15, Nagar Panchayat. ; Gunderdehi, District : iiBI w, irii^'"l^fE)^?q" ;Li3i^y?;: Q i O Chhattisgarh. Smt. Ramshila Sahu, W/o Dr. Dayaram Sahu, aged about 45 years, M.L.A., Gunderdehi Constituency, Gunderdehi, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh. Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawai, learney.counsel appellant. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, leamed D( Advocate General for respondents No. 1 Shri V.R. Tiv/ari, learned counsei for No.4, Sh.ri Prateek Sharrna, respondents No. 6 to 18. ith of March, ition for the foilowing - "7.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned memo dafed 26-03-2007 (Ann&xure P-10) before this Hon'ble Court, for its kind perusal. The foliowin Heard ment of the Court vvas counsel Tor the parties on 2. AppeSSant - Bharti Sonkar, has fi!ed this writ appeal agalnst the impugned.order dated 04-03-2008, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2284/2007. 3. Appeilant / petitioner filed the 7.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindiy be pteased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings culminating irto memo dated 25-03-2007 (Annsxure P-10) and declare the same as void and inoperative, and the further proceedings consequent to memo dated 26-03-2007 be also quashed. ^ 7.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitloner. • , .\ 7.4) Any other relief whic^thte Hon'bie Court deems frt and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest ofjustice." tha II iG The petitioner, thus, in substance proceedings arising out of the n cing quashing of rted 26-03-20i HS, / petitioner was eiected as President of Nagar Panchayat, Gunderdehi sometime in November-December, 2004. On 15-03-2007, respondent No.6 - Pramod Kumar Jain, a Counciltor of Nagar Panchayat, Guhderdehi moved an apptication (Annexure P-5) before the Coilector, Durg for recalling the appeliant / petitioner from the post of th.e President, Nagar Panchsyat, Gunderdehi. T'ne said motion to recalt the petitioner was signed by 12 other Counciliors. The Collector, Durg after satssfying hsmsslf as required. under Section 47 of t'ne C.G. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short Detitioner to the State Government the State Election Commisston. Act") prepared the memo to recal' the appeilant / beina further foro'arded to :ffSSS&-}:rSS^:^^SSs's^ a?s&^^l^s^^^ 1 215 °i ;c The petitioner in the writ petition chatlenged the process of recail and the memo prepared by the Co'iectQr, Durg on the grounds that the motion of recal! v/as not validly presented by 3/4'L" of totat numbsr of She eiected CQunciilQrs; propQsai was ^ never placed before the Collector for verification and recordinc h.is satlsfaction, as required under Section 47(2) of the Act; \ statements were recorded by the'-Deputy Collector without any authority and that too before the tsme fixed i.e. at 11.00 A.M. on 22-03-2007; whole exercise of verification was done 'at t'ne behest of respondent No. 18 - Smt. Ramshiia Sahu, M.L.A. of Gunderdehi Constituency; objection of the petitioner with regard to the genuineness & correctness of the proposal to recall has not been considered; the whoie exercise was held without any notice to the petitioner and she was not given opportunity to be present during the course of verification; and the Coliector was duty bound to verify the genuineness of the proposal and he could not 'nay.e enfrusted Section 47(2) of verification to the Act does not empower Collector, as Cotlector to delegate his powers to the Deputy ColSector. 7. Learned Singte Judge on a thorough consideration of the submtsstons of learned counsel for the parties and fot!owing the Fu!l Bench judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of State of M.P. Vs. 'Mahendra Kumar Saraf reported in i • -' i51, did not find any substance in the above tissions advanced on behalf of the appeIlanV petitioner. Learned Single Judae, therefore, passed the 2JR -i. (f impugned order dated 04-03-2008 whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. 8. S'nri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appeliant confined his submsssions to the following two grounds only (1) that the satisfaction of the Coliector recorded in the memo dated 26-03-2007 (Annexure P-10 in the writ petition) was about "Motion of No-Confidence" and not\9bout "Motion to Recali"; (is) and that the Collector himsetf did not verify and satisfy as contempiated ur.der Section 47(2) of the Act, as in th& present case, the vsrlfication and satlsfaction was of the Deputy tollector, which is evident from the note-sheet prepared by the Depisty Collector (Annexure P-11 in the writ petition). So far as the first submission of tearned counsel for the 3ppe!!ant is concerned, the iearned Single Judge has dealt with the same in detail in para 15 of the impugned order, which reads as fol'ovvs:- "15. So far as the iast submission of learned counse! for the pstitioner that memo of Annexure P-10, wherein the Cotlector has mentioned that he is satlsfied that the proposa! of no confidence against the petitioner has been properiy placed, refers to "no confidence motion" and not to "recaH of the petitioner" from the post of President of ••Nagar Panchayat and as such, the same is not a proposa! wlthin the meaning of Sectlon 47(2) of the Act and therefore, the State Government could not refer-the proposal to the State Election Commission for voting on proposa! of recall, is concerned, the CTadhya Pradesh Nagar Paiik Vidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1999 (No.11 of 1999) was enacted and came into force w.e.f. iM^il •^ i^ 1 '; i ;': 'y 7 n 23-4-1999. Prior to the amendment there was a provision of "no confidence motion" against the President under Section 47 of the Act, which was substituted by the above amendment. The proposal submitted by 12 Councltlors out of 15 clearly mentions that the signatories of the memo have no confidence in the petitioner, they want to remove her and therefore, they are tabling this no confidence motion for removjng her and for recalling her. Thus, the proposal before the'Collector was for recalling of the petitioner and only duty cSst 6n the Coilector under Section 47 of the Act is to verify the genuineness of the contents of the proposal and the Coilector after due verification recorded his satisfaction and fom'ardgd the proposal to.the State Government for further action. In these circumstances, mentioning of "no confidence motion" in place of "recall of the petitioner" wouid not invalidate the whole exercise of recatl and proceeding for recall cannot be quashed." 10. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the rnotion submitted by respondent No.6 - Pramod Kumar Jain (Annexure P-5, page 73) is described as "motion of no confidence and to recall". The contents of Annexure P-5 further indicate that what was intended by the 13 Councillors of the Annexure P-5 was to recall the appellanVpetitioner who was the President of Nagar Panchayat, Gunderdehi. !n the note-sheet prepared by the Deputy Coltector, Durg (Annexure P-11) also the motion has been menfioned .as 'Motion of No-Confidence and to recall". It y;as only in, the memo of the Collector, Durg, dated 26-03-2007 (Annexure-P/10) that !"::KiB ,[1!SKS li'i nffiSS IB • Bl fcllj!^lllf EfliiSSI illiB'iii !{:^:W1") • 118B saa s~^ -^ 1. -^ '.• N—--'/-' ..t" '. ^ J. f") the motion came to be mentioned only as "Motion of Confidence". 11. On a cumulative consideration of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we have no manner of doubt that on the mere mention of the motion as "Motion of No Confidence" in place of "Motson to Recaii" by the Collector in the memo dated 26.03.2007, it cannot be heid that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 47 (2) of the Act have not been complied with by the Collector, Durg. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the fsrst submission of learned counse! for the appellant and the same is liable to be rejected and is hereby rsjected.. 12. So far as the appeliant's other contention about the verification having been done and satisfaction recorded by the Deputy Collector and not by the Collector as required under Section 47 (2) of the Act, js concemed, a bare comparative perusal of the memo prepared by the Coilector -Annexure-P/10 and the note-sheet of the Deputy Coliector - Annexure P/1 1 reveals that the Coilector has noticed and recorded certain features in the motion which were neither noticed by the Deputy c.0(iector nor recorded in the note-sheet prepared by him. Thus, itfe apparent that the Collector, Durg has independently verified the motion; the contents thereof; the number of the signatpries on the motion and other relevant aspects himself.and ther.eafter prepared the memo datgd 26.03.2007 recording his satisfaction as is contemplated under Section 47 (2) of the Act. ' ' ii (fla s, t • / 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any good for interference in this vi/rit appeai. The writ appea!, there liable to be dismissed an< .——"^ummaniY, -^^ SUD"KuinarSinha Sd/- i Jud8e Chief Justice efore, is !ft;^S illl ii liiaiH