IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a ballot paper must clearly indicate a voter's intention; an unclear mark does not constitute a valid vote in a No Confidence Motion.

ORDER :

(Parth Prateem Sahu, J.)

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1. That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to place all the records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

10.2. That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 09/07/2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 in case No.202106061000013/A-89(6)/2020-21.

10.3. That, the Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to declare the No-Confidence Motion dated 09/07/2021 (Annexure P-7) as passed.

10.4. That such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the elected Panchas of Village Panchayat- Bhadripali, Janpad Panchayat- Sakti. They have submitted an application for bringing “No Confidence Motion” against respondent No.5 (Sarpanch) of Village Panchayat- Bhadripali, Janpad Panchayat Sakti. Based on the application/notice submitted before the Prescribed Authority, notice was issued in terms of 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 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1994”) fixing the date, time and place of the meeting. On the date fixed, meeting was convened and all 11 elected Panchas including the Sarpanch participated in the proceedings of “No confidence Motion”. After discussion, the polling was done and the Presiding Officer recorded in the proceeding that out of 11, 8 votes casted in favour of “Motion of No Confidence”, 2 votes against the Motion and 1 was declared Invalid. The 1 vote which was declared as Invalid in fact was a valid vote wherein the tick mark was made by one of the Panchas which was little small and, therefore, it ought to have been counted in favour of “Motion of No Confidence”. Had the said 1 vote declared Invalid is counted in favour of Motion, the “Motion of No Confidence” could have been carried out with the majority. He submits that though other grounds are also taken in the writ petition, however, he is not pressing the said grounds as the issue inviolved herein has been considered and decided in the decision passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Deshraj Singh Vs Gram Panchayat and Ors. [1999 (1) MPLJ 621]. He further places reliance upon in the decision of Sharda Bai Khatik Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. [1997 (2) MPLJ 291].

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that there is no error in convening the proceeding by the Prescribed Authority and counting of votes. Presiding Officer has very correctly recorded that 8 votes have been casted in favour of “Motion of No Confidence”, 2 against the Motion and 1 has been declared to be Invalid. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the tick mark which is small in size has not been considered, is without any basis. No material is placed in this regard. He also submits that as per observation of this Court, the ballot-paper in sealed cover is called for perusal of Court.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5/ Sapanch also adopts the submission of learned counsel for the State and opposing the pleadings made in the writ petition would submit that for carrying out “No Confidence Motion”, Motion could be carried only when the voting is in majority by the elected Panchas asking for bringing “No Confidence Motion” against the office bearer of Panchayat, which in this case is lacking. He submits that requisite majority as per the coram of 11 elected Members, for bringing “No Confidence Motion” in accordance with Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “Adhiniyam, 1993”) , is 8.25. However, in the meeting of “Motion of No Confidence