JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 5 to 16.

2. Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1774 of 2022, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

3. The appellant was elected as a Councillor from Ward No. 07 in Nagar Panchayat, Gunderdehi on 04.01.2020 and subsequently, she was elected as President by the elected Councillors.

4. There is no dispute that Nagar Panchayat, Gunderdeshi consists of 15 Councillors.

5. A requisition for holding “No Confidence Motion” against the appellant was submitted by 13 Councillors, which was received by the Collector, Balod on 01.04.2022 and on the basis thereon, the Collector, by an order dated 04.04.2022, convened a special meeting in terms of Section 43-A of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, for short, the Act of 1961, on 18.04.2022 at 11:00 am in the office of the Nagar Panchayat and also nominated an officer to preside over the meeting.

6. The writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid order dated 04.04.2022 primarily on the ground that copy of the requisition was not made available to the appellant along with the order dated 10.05.2022 and that the order also did not indicate the names of the requisitionists who had asked for holding meeting for No Confidence Motion as also the allegations, if any.

7. The learned Single Judge, by the order impugned, dismissed the writ petition.

8. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel submits that fairness in action demands that a copy of the requisition should have been sent along with the order dated 10.05.2022 to enable the appellant to face the No Confidence Motion in an appropriate manner. He has, in this context, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad, 2012 (3) LAWS (SC) 4, with particular reference to paragraph 17 thereon.

9. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 16 submits that under Section 43-A (2) (i) of the Act of 1961, a meeting has to be convened forthwith on the requisition signed by not less than one-sixth of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council for the time being and in the instant case, when 13 Councillors out of 15 had given the requisition, the Collector was duty bound to convene a meeting for discussing the No Confidence Motion.

10. It is further submitted that Section 43-A does not provide for giving copy of the requisition along with notice and in absence of any challenge to the provision, submission of Mr. Jha cannot be entertained.

11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

12. The decision in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) is rendered in the context of removal of elected members of the Panchayat Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies and therefore, the judgment in the context of removal of a elected member is distinguishable with a No Confidence Motion moved against an elected member by the members of the body itself.

13. Taking note of a similar argument advanced in the case of Satya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in W.A. No. 284 of 2022, this Court by the judgment dated 10.08.2022, at paragraph 27, had observed as follows:

“27. In absence of a plea raised in writ petition with regard to the contention advanced before us that the copy of the requisition was required to be sent by the Collector along with the notice convening the meeting for holding discussion on no-confidence motion and language of Section 43-A having not prescribed that copy of requisition and/or allegations, if any, are required to be sent along with the notice, we are not examining the aforesaid plea in the present appeal