ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities.

10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the unserved notice and impugned order dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P/1) with all subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to function as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sajbahar, Janpad Panchayat-Sejbahar, District-Jashpur (CG)

10.3. To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

2. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Sajbahar, Janpad Panchayat-Farsabahar, District-Jashpur. The elected Panchas of the Gram Panchayat have submitted an application before the Prescribed Authority under Rule 3 (1) of 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 (hereinafter referred to as “ Rules of 1994”) on 30.06.2022. The Prescribed Authority on the same date has nominated the Presiding Officer for convening meeting of “No Confidence Motion”, fixed the date of meeting and also issued notice to elected Panchas intimating the date and place for convening meeting of No Confidence Motion on 11.07.2022. Notice was not issued in the name of petitioner and when petitioner became aware that proceeding of “No Confidence Motion” is to be initiated against her and for which Prescribed Authority has already issued notice on the application submitted by other elected Panchas, she approached the office of Prescribed Authority asking about the correctness of the fact, upon which, petitioner was served with notice on 06.07.2022 which she has placed on record along with covering memo. He submits that as the notice is dispatched on 06.07.2022 to petitioner fixing date of meeting on 11.07.2022 within 7 days of the date of issuance of notice, therefore, there is violation of provision of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994 and therefore entire proceeding of “No Confidence Motion” initiated by the Prescribed Authority is vitiated.

3. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the State submits that submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to dispatch of notice to the petitioner on 06.07.2022 is not correct. The notice to all the elected Panchas based on the application was dispatched by the Prescribed Authority on 30.06.2022 fixing the date of convening of meeting on 11.07.2022. Relying on the decision of Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Smt. Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. 2000 (4) MPHT 69 (FB), he submits that law with regard to notice is seven clear days from the date of dispatch and not from the date of receipt of notice. He contended that notice dated 30.06.2022 issued by the Prescribed Authority to the elected Panchas was served upon most of the elected Panchas. However, when the Secretary of the Village Panchayat went to house of the petitioner with the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on 30.06.2022, other family members who were present in the house of the petitioner have not informed about the whereabouts of the petitioner and accordingly notice was returned back on 04.07.2022. Petitioner got knowledge of issuance of notice of “No Confidence Motion” which is also appearing from copy of notice enclosed along with writ petition. If submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted that notice is not addressed to the petitioner, then also petitioner got the notice of proceedings on 06.07.2022 and therefore submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that notice was dispatched only on 06.07.2022 is per se wrong in