Non-compliance with statutory requirements may be waived if it does not result in failure of justice or serious prejudice.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been preferred by the 18 Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Dahida, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh on 28.06.2012 (Annexure P-19) allowing the reference filed by respondent No.6 Smt. Dokari Bai, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dahida, u/s 21 (4) of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (henceforth 'Adhiniyam ').

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that respondent No.6 is the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. On an earlier occasion, no confidence motion was passed against her, however, same was declared as illegal on the ground that the notice of no-confidence motion was dispatched only two days before the date of meeting. However, relying on the judgment of M.P. High Court in the matter of Kandhlal Patel Vs. State of M.P., 1999 (2) JLJ 109, it was directed that since the no-confidence motion has been set aside on technical grounds, the bar under section 21 (3)(iii) of the Adhiniyam 1993 against bringing another motion within one year would not apply in the case. This order was passed on 17.04.2012 in W.P(C). No.2932/2011.

3. The petitioners moved a no-confidence motion again on 07.05.2012 on which the SDO (Revenue), Sarangarh/prescribed authority, instead of taking steps as desired under C.G. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Avishwas Prastav Niyam, 1994") sought opinion from the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, who in turn sought opinion from its counsel. The SDO (Revenue) vide letter Annexure P-6 dated 9-5-2012 again sought opinion from the Deputy Director (Panchayat) and on receiving the opinion on 14.05.2012 (Annexure P-7) in favour of processing the no confidence motion dispatched the notice to all the members of the Panchayat on 14.05.2012 convening the meeting of Gram Panchayat on 21.05.2012. In the said meeting, 18 Panchas voted in favour of the motion and three members of the Panchayat voted against it. Since the desired number of Panchas voted in favour of no confidence motion, the respondent no.6 was removed from the office. The Sarpanch submitted a reference u/s 21 (4) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Additional Collector and the said authority allowed the reference on the ground that notice of meeting was not dispatched by giving clear 7 days notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in the earlier writ petition it was not decided as to whether after the Sarpanch having participated in the meeting and no prejudice having been caused the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat can be annulled in view of the law laid down by the full bench of M.P. High Court in the matter of Smt. Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of M.P. 2001 (2) MPLJ 372. He would submit that in the earlier round of litigation, only 3 days' notice was given whereas in the present case, the meeting has taken place on the 8th day, therefore, it is not a case of violation of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Aviswas Prastav Rules, 1994. He would further submit that unless the outgoing Sarpanch succeeds in demonstrating before this Court that she was prejudiced in any manner at the time of meeting, the resolution of the Panchayat cannot be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as also learned counsel for respondent No.5 Janpad Panchayat and respondent No.6 would argue that since 7 clear days' notice was not issued, the Additional Collector has rightly set aside the decision of the Gram Panchayat passing the motion of no-confidence.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasoning assigned by the Additional Collector while allowing the application filed by respondent No.6 and setting aside the resolution of the Gram Panchayat is not in accordance with law lai