:"’“£;‘’r. 1. t 3W m (W) mm afar 31m WW @W( % aifa‘q 311W ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHH WRIT PETITION PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF I ETITIOENR D R S K Ja VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. St Se K R 2. C B 3. S J 4. N L ORAL TTISGARH: BILASPUR No. 2177 of 2008 [2227 OF THE CONSTITUTION DIA] i Singh, son of Shri Lakhamu , aged about 35 years, panch, Gram Panchayat— nar, Block Lohandiguda, Tahsil, dalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) te of Chhattisgarh, through the retary, Department of Panchayat d Rural Development, Dau yan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, ‘pur (C.G.) llector— Bastar, Jagdalpur, Distt. star (C.G.) b-Divisional Officer‘ (Rev.) dalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ib Tahsildar, Sub Tahsil andiguda Tahsil Jagdalpur,“ Bastar (C.G.) ORDER sel for the petitioner. Advocate for the State. // DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. Shri Sandeep Dubey, coun Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Heard. WW,§? H1 Q,W “ @ By this petition under Arti India, the petitioner has impugm motion’ passed against him in Kaknaar, dated 5.3.2008, where‘t from the post of Sarpanch. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false proceeding of the meeting dated 5.3.2008 has been drawn, though no such meeting was held on t date. The petitioner was not served With the notice in accor ance with Section 21 (1) of the (in short ‘Act of 1993’) and the whole exercise of carrying out the resolution of ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner :le 226/227 of the Constitution of :d the resolution of ‘no confidence the meeting of Gram Panchayat— ty the petitioner has been removed Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 199 s been accomplished With the active collusion of rival party o the petitioner with respondents No.2 8L 3. ‘No confidence motion’ aga nst the Sarpanch or Up—sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is to b carried out in accordance with Section 21 (1) of the Act of 199 . Section 21 (4) envisages that if the Sarpanch or the Up-sarpanc desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out unde sub—section (1), then the same should be challenged within se en days from the date on which such,motion was carried, by refe ring the dispute to the Collector, Who is further required to deci e the same as far as possible, ”within a period of thirty days from the date on which it was received by him and his decision hall be final. GRPRJ ~— FS/246e-— 2/2007 ~a 50,000, a a “ Wm. Hi 200 W m (Wet) mwm wm'm Wmm mm? metaWm é: aim amt WW,W,W i @ e petitioner instead of availing the statutory alternative remedy tl In the instant case, a of the Act of 1993, has d Article 226/227 f the Costi Considering the fact t the Gram Panchayat—Kaknaa th Gram Panchayat have members, n m t except the petitioner/Sarpanch has . rais any grievance agains t - r ti ru" : a a e p confidence otion’ and l me t no member of the Panchaya thatpresent is not the flt cas t petioner, against the esol be entertained in View of avai available to the petitioner. : deserve be dismissed an 1 vailable to him under Section 21(4) ectly approached this Court under u a i ’ rticipated and voted and out of 11 10 members vo tion of India. 1” t in the meeting dated 5.3.2008 of , 11 members, out of 12 members of d in favour of resolution of ‘no ber voted against the resolution and the resolution, I am of the opinion Where the petition at the instance of ion of ‘no confidencerrmotion’ should bility of statutory alternative remedy ition has no substance, the same In the result, the pe t is hereby dismissed/ / Sd" - aw iremlxaM‘Sm D“ wage / ed i] o n1 ' e t l 1 d to d i WN m “i 200 Wm (W) WW§WW