JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the notice of No-confidence issued by the respondent No.2 for holding the No-confidence Motion on 04.02.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the proceedings holding it to be violative of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat ke President and Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994. According to the petitioner, the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 does not reflect acknowledgement of the receipt of the complaint from the Panchas, nor is there any particular date provided so far as receipt of the complaint by the respondent No.2 is concerned, which is required as per Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules of 1994.

3. The further contention of the petitioner is that the further requirement under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of convening a meeting within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the respondent No.2 also has not been followed in this case and a meeting now has been proposed to be convened much beyond the 15 days period provided under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3.

4. Perusal of the pleadings with the writ petition particularly the proceedings that have been drawn by the respondent No.2, it reflects that the order sheet for the first time was recorded on 19.01.2022. In the said proceedings also there is no reflection of the date and time on which the respondent No.2 had received the notice from the Panchas for initiating appropriate proceedings under Section 21(3) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. Further, even if 19.01.2022 is accepted to be the date on which the Sub-Divisional Officer has received the notice from the majority of the Panchas for initiating the No-Confidence Motion, even then 15 days time had to be adhered to from 19.01.2022. In the instant case, the No-Confidence Motion is said to be held on 04.02.2022, which is much beyond 15 days even from 19.01.2022.

5. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of Sub-Rule (2) and Sub- Rule (3) of the aforesaid Rules of 1994, which for ready reference is quoted hereinunder:

“(2) The prescribed authority, on receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) shall sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which hour and at which the notice has been given to him and shall acknowledge its receipt.

(3) On receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to sections 21(3), 28(3) and 35(3), as the case may be. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be dispatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting.”

6. The plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law clearly gives an indication that on receipt of a notice by the competent authority, there has to be a certificate issued stating the date and time on which at which the notice was received by him and there also has to be an acknowledgment of receipt issued in this regard. Prima facie this fact seems to be missing from the proceedings as the petitioner has furnished the certified copy of the entire proceedings drawn by the respondent No.2.

7. Further, Sub-Rule (3) also emphatically mandates that the Prescribed Authority shall fix the date, time and venue for the meeting on the No- Confidence Motion within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the Prescribed Authority. If 19.01.2022 is the date on which the Sub- Divisional Officer has received the notice from the Panchas, even then the