Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Smt. Fuleshwari Mahesh W/o Narayan Mahesh and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department and ors. - Respondents
WPC No. 3953 of 2022
Decided On : 05-08-2024
(A) Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Section 21 – No-confidence motion against Sarpanch – The petition challenges the dismissal of a revision against the Collector's order allowing a reference that set aside the no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch. The court found that the notice for the no-confidence motion was validly served, and the Collector's conclusion regarding service was erroneous. (Paras 1, 3, 14, 16)
(B) Procedural Compliance – The court emphasized that the requirement for notice to be dispatched seven days prior to the meeting is mandatory, and non-compliance does not invalidate a no-confidence motion if the requisite majority is present. (Paras 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their revision against the Collector's order which set aside the no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch, asserting that proper notice was served.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the no-confidence motion, ruling that the Collector's findings were incorrect and that the motion was validly passed. Issues: The main issues were the validity of the notice served for the no-confidence motion and the procedural compliance under the relevant rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice was properly served and that the Collector's decision was contrary to the established rules regarding notice dispatch.
Result: Writ petition allowed, affirming the no-confidence motion.
ORDER :
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
1.By way of this petition, petitioner has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order dated 22.08.2022, passed by Additional Commissioner/respondent No.2 in Revision Case No. 29-A-89/2021-22, whereby respondent No.2 dismissed the revision filed by petitioners challenging the order dated 16.02.2022 allowing the reference filed by respondent No.7 against the proceedings of no confidence motion carried out against her.
2.Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent No.7 was elected Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Hardi, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh. Mentioning the reasons, a notice was submitted before the Prescribed Authority signed by 13 Panchas including the petitioners out of 17 panchas requesting for bringing no confidence motion against Sarpanch (respondent No.7). After receipt of notice submitted by elected panchas, the Prescribed Authority had proceeded with the same and issued notice for holding no confidence motion on 20.07.2021 fixing date, time and place of meeting. The meeting was scheduled on 31.07.2021. Presiding Officer was appointed and on the scheduled date, no confidence motion was convened. In the proceedings of no confidence motion, all the elected members participated and 14 votes were casted in favour of motion of no confidence and four votes were casted against no confidence motion. The Presiding Officer has forwarded the proceedings mentioning that no confidence motion is carried out against the Sarpanch i.e. respondent No.7. Based on the proceeding forwarded by Presiding Officer to the Prescribed Authority, order dated 02.08.2021 was passed affirming the proceedings of no confidence. The respondent No.7 preferred a reference before the Collector under Section 21 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam, 1993’). The Collector upon considering the pleadings made in the reference/application and submissions had allowed the reference and set-aside the order dated 02.08.2021 of the Prescribed Authority. The order of the Collector in reference was put to challenge in a revision before the Additional Commissioner/ Respondent No.2, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order against which this petition is filed seeking following relief (s) :-
10.2That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to affirm the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the S.D.O. and also affirm the no confidence motion passed against the respondent No.7/Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Hardi.
10.3That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”
3.Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the Collector while considering the reference erroneously concluded that in the notice there is no mention of the date of service, it was served through affixing it on the door/wall and it was not served upon respondent No.7 in person, which is erroneous and contrary to the record. Further it is also concluded that notice was not served upon respondent No.7/Sarpanch prior to the time prescribed for service and there is violation of 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’). He contended that the said finding recorded by the Collector in the reference proceedings is also contrary to the record. The notice was dispatched on 20.07.2021 and service of notice is not in dispute. Perusal of the notice annexed along with writ petition would show that copy of service report bears signature of the respondent No.7 and therefore, the ground t
The court ruled that proper notice for a no-confidence motion was served, and the Collector's decision to set it aside was erroneous, affirming the motion's validity.
The requirement of a fifteen clear days' notice for no-confidence motions is mandatory, computed from the date of dispatch, excluding both the date of dispatch and the date of the meeting.
The failure to furnish a copy of the requisition for a no-confidence motion does not invalidate the motion if it is adopted by the requisite majority, as the requirement is directory, not mandatory.
Procedural safeguards under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act are mandatory for no-confidence motions; late notice receipt does not invalidate proceedings absent demonstrable prejudice.
The court ruled that compliance with procedural safeguards under the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 is critical for no-confidence motions, affirming that minor deviations do not invalidate democrati....
The court established that the personal delivery requirement in Section 15(2) is directory, allowing for valid notice delivery to an alternate official.
The court affirmed that compliance with statutory notice provisions in a no confidence motion was sufficient, and challenges based on alleged deficiencies or political motives were unsubstantiated.
Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act is crucial, but minor deviations that do not demonstrate prejudice may not invalidate no-confidence proceedings....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
