The critical date for notice despatch is the date of the meeting, and the satisfaction of the prescribed authority is essential for the validity of the 'No-Confidence Motion'. No prejudice is caused when the resolution is passed by an overwhelming majority.

1. By this writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 18.9.2006 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund in Revenue Case No. 34/A89/2005-06, wherein and where under, it was held that 'No-Confidence Motion', placed in the Gram Panchayat meeting held on 30.8.2006 against the respondent No.5 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dongargaon, Block Bagbahra, Tahsil & District Mahasamund was not carried out, in accordance with law. Thus, the resolution to carry out No-Confidence Motion' was declared invalid.

2. The indisputable facts in nutshell are that the petitioners are elected Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Dongargaon, Tahsil, Bagbahra, District, Mahasamund (hereinafter referred to as 'Gram Panchayat'). The respondent No.5 was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The total number of Panchas, excluding the Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat are 19 Panchas. The notices to hold the meeting for carrying out No Confidence Motion was despatched on 22.8.2006 (Annexure P-1 to P- 19). In the notice, it was clearly stated that Shri G.S. Sharma, Naib Tahsildar, Bagbahra would be appointed as Presiding Officer. Notice was duly received by all the Panchas, including Sarpanch well in time.

3. The respondent No.5 i.e. Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat participated in the meeting and before No Confidence Motion' was put for the voting, the respondent No.5 availed the opportunity of addressing the meeting. Out of 19, 17 Panchas cast their votes in favour of No Confidence Motion' and 2 Panchas cast their votes against the 'No Confidence Motion'. Thus, the 'No-Confidence Motion' against the Sarpanch was carried out in the meeting held on 30.8.2006.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the 'No Confidence Motion', the respondent No.5 preferred an appeal under Section 21 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') before the Collector, Mahasamund. The Collector, Mahasamund after hearing the parties held that it is not clear as to whether notice was served or not. The meeting was not held under the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha UpSarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Niyam, 1994'). Accordingly, the Collector declared the meeting to consider the 'No Confidence Motion' against the respondent No.5 as invalid not being in accordance with law.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.9.2006 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund, the present petitioners, who are elected Panchas of the Gram Panchayat, filed this petition seeking a writ/direction to quash the impugned order dated 18.9.2006 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund and to hold that the 'No Confidence Motion' was duly carried out against the Sarpanch.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the Rule 3(3) of the Niyam, 1994 the requirement of notice is despatching the notice to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting. In the present case admittedly, the notice was despatched on 22.8.2006 for the meeting to be held on 30.8.2006. There is clear seven days notice before the meeting was held. Learned counsel further submitted that the Collector has not considered the facts that the notice was despatched on 22.8.2006.

7. It is next contended that the Collector has not examined the requirement of Section 21 (3) of the Adhiniyarn, 1993 in its proper perspective.

8. Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 supported the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

9. Mrs. Renu Kochar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.5, per contra, made her submission in support of the impugned order, stating that the req