The legal framework for a no-confidence motion, as outlined in the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules, 1994, must be followed, including the prescribed authority's satisfaction recording process and the procedure for conducting the no-confidence motion.

ORDER :

1) The first petition (WPC No. 131 of 2024), has been filed against the notice dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure-P/1), issued by the prescribed Authority/Collector, whereby cognizance was taken and the date was fixed for the meeting on the ‘no-confidence motion’ on 17.01.2024 at the Office of Janpad Panchayat, Aarang at 12:00 PM.

2) The Second Petition (WPC No. 170 of 2024), has been filed by members of Janpad Panchayat on the ground that the notice dated 08.01.2024, issued by the prescribed authority/Collector to convene the no-confidence motion was not signed by them, and this way, they are supporting the case of the petitioners of WPC No.131 of 2024. The members who have filed WPC No.170 of 2024 are not before this Court against any specific order and they cannot be held aggrieved party, therefore, the petition filed by the members is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed at this stage.

3) Now coming to the facts of WPC No.131 of 2024, the election for 25 members of Janpad Panchayat, Arang was held in the month of January-February 2019. After the election, from the elected members of Janpad Panchyat, one of them was elected as President. During these four years, one of the members expired and at present, there are 24 members only. An application/complaint was moved before the prescribed authority/Collector, Raipur on 05.01.2024 making certain allegations which are reproduced herein below:-

4) The authorities recorded their satisfaction according to the provisions of Rule 3(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 (in short, the Rules, 1994). Thereafter, the members were directed to appear for the no-confidence motion meeting on 17.01.2024 at about 12 noon at Janpad Panchayat, Aarang and the Sub-Divisional Officer was appointed as the presiding officer.

5) Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners would argue on the following four points :-

(i) The prescribed authority/Collector has not recorded its satisfaction according to Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994;

(ii) The allegations made in the complaint are frivolous and the same were not enquired into by the authority while recording its satisfaction;

(iii) The petitioner/Khileshwar Dewangan is an elected President of Janpad Panchayat and he cannot be removed from office without following due process of law; and

(iv) The Prescribed authority/Collector cannot delegate its power to the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct the meeting of no-confidence motion.

He argues that no prudent person can reach the conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint are true because no description concerning the allegations were put forth by the members. He also contends that the provisions of Section 44(4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam were not followed. In support thereof, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 2524, the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Satya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and others in Writ Appeal No. 284 of 2022, and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Sandeep Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPC No. 1931 of 2011.

6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. They would submit that the prescribed authority has recorded its satisfaction according to the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994. With regard to the next submission, they would submit that there is no requirement to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made by the members. They would further submit that the President is an elected president of Janpad Panchayat, whose work was not found satisfactory, the