ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved with the notice dated 18.2.2022 (Annexure P1) issued by Respondent 2/Collector, whereby the notice of motion for no confidence against the Petitioner has been served upon him on 23.2.2022.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the Petitioner is an elected Vice President of Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur. Vide a complaint dated 14.2.2022 (Annexure P2), the Petitioner made a complaint to the Collector, Jagdalpur with regard to irregularities committed by the authorities and officials relating to misappropriation of the funds of 15th Finance Commission. Certain allegations were also made against the Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur. The President Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur in reply given a letter dated 17.2.2022 (Annexure P3) for taking action against the Petitioner pursuant to the complaint made by the Petitioner as stated above. Without passing any resolution for moving a no confidence motion against the Petitioner, the Collector only on the basis of the letter (Annexure P3) written by the President Janpad Panchayat issued the above notice Annexure P1, which is illegal. The provisions of Section 28 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1993’) and Rule 3 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 (henceforth ‘the Rules of 1994’) have not been complied with by the Collector and the Collector issued the notice dated 18.2.2022 (Annexure P1).

3. In their reply, the private Respondents stated that by concealing the material facts the Petitioner has preferred this petition. Virtually, on 17.2.2022 itself, no confidence motion has been moved by the Respondents before the Collector and on the basis of the said, the Collector called a list of elected members of Janpad Panchayat and fixed the case on 18.2.2022 and on 18.2.2022 after going through the list of elected members of Janpad Panchayat which he received from the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, fixed the date, time and place for the meeting of the Janpad Panchayat for conveying no confidence motion and also appointed the prescribed officer for presiding over the meeting. The notices were also issued to every elected members including the Petitioner 7 days before the meeting. The Petitioner and other members were also duly served with the noticed and on 28.2.2022 the no confidence meeting was convened. In the said meeting, the Petitioner was also present and opportunity of hearing was also afforded to him. In the voting, 16 votes out of 18 have been cast against the Petitioner, i.e., in favour of the no confidence motion. The 2 votes, including the Petitioner’s vote, were against the no confidence motion and the no confidence motion was passed by 16 votes on 28.2.2022 itself. But, concealing all the above facts, the Petitioner has filed this petition and on 28.2.2022 got an interim order from this Court in his favour.

4. In his rejoinder, the Petitioner stated that he has not concealed any material fact from this Court on 28.2.2022. No proper notice of meeting of no confidence motion was given to him by the Collector. The notice was received by him on 23.2.2022. When the notice was served to the Petitioner a copy of the requisition/proposal for no confidence motion was not served to the Petitioner. Therefore, he has no knowledge about the allegations which have been made against him to defend himself properly. Therefore, violation of natural justice has been done.

5. I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and perused the entire material available with due care.

6. The main contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that proper opportunity of hearing has not been given to the Petitioner and copy of the allegations which have been made against him on the basis of which the meeting of no confidence motion was to