JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P/1 dated 21.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-the State Government, the present writ petition has been filed. Vide the impugned order, the respondent No.1 while hearing the revision petition has partly allowed the revision petition.

2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition is that, the respondent No.7 was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hirmi. The respondents No.8 to 26 were other elected Panchas of the same Gram Panchayat all of whom were elected from Panchayat Election held on 04.02.2020.

3. On 26.02.2021, some of the Panchas of the Gram Panchayat Hirmi moved a representation before the respondent No.4 calling for No Confidence Motion to be convened against the respondent No.7-Sarpanch. The respondent No.4 took cognizance on the said representation of the Panchas and proceeded in accordance with provisions of Section 21(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short, the Adhiniyam) and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. The Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (in short, the Rules, 1994). The Prescribed Authority thereafter fixed the date for No Confidence Motion to be held on 15.03.2021. In the course, the respondent No.4 had appointed the Naib Tehsildar, Suhela to act as a Presiding Officer and ordered for issuance of notices to all the parties concerned in this regard. On 15.03.2021 as per Schedule the meeting for No Confidence Motion was held and in the voting that took place, 15 votes were in favour of No Confidence and 5 votes were against the motion. Thus, the No Confidence Motion was passed by 3/4th of the majority.

4. The respondent No.7 is said to be present on the motion. After the motion was passed on 15.03.2021, the respondent No.7 made a Reference before the Collector under Section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam. The District Collector upon hearing the Reference vide his order dated 23.12.2021 set aside the order of No Confidence Motion passed against the respondent No.7. The order of the Collector was on the ground that the meeting of No Confidence Motion was held beyond a period of 15 days which is otherwise the maximum period within which the meeting of No Confidence Motion has to be convened by the Prescribed Authority as is otherwise envisaged under Rule 3(3) of Rules of 1994. The Panchas who had voted in favour of No Confidence thereafter preferred a Revision Petition before the Commissioner, Raipur Division i.e. the respondent No.2. After hearing the entire facts and circumstances of the Revision and on perusal of the records, the Revisional Authority has also affirmed the order passed by the District Collector vide his order dated 30.03.2022.

5. The petitioner herein who was the incharge Sarpanch after respondent No.7 was removed, immediately preferred a Revision Petition before the respondent No.1 i.e. the State Government challenging the decision passed by the District Collector on 23.12.2021 and that of the Commissioner dated 30.03.2022. The respondent No.1 also has affirmed the order of District Collector as also the Commissioner to the extent of action of No Confidence to be violative of Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1994. Therefore, the respondent No.1 also declined to interfere with the orders passed by the District Collector and which was further affirmed by the Commissioner. However, the respondent No.1 without interfering with the finding of the Collector and the Commissioner reserved the right of the Panchas who had moved No Confidence Motion for independently moving a fresh proceeding for No Confidence Motion and in case if such move is made then the conditions stipulated under Clause 3 of Sub-Section 3 of Section 21 of the Rules 1994 shall not be applicable. With the aforesaid liberty, the Revision was partly allowed and disposed of. It is this order of the Revision Petition