The legitimacy of a no-confidence motion is upheld unless proven procedurally flawed to the extent of causing substantial prejudice.

1. Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 01/08/2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur and the order dated 23/07/2013 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur.

2. Vide order dated 1-8-2011 the Additional Collector had set aside the proceedings of No - Confidence Motion drawn against respondent No. 1 and in revision, the said order has been affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 23/07/2013.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2010 respondent No. 1 - Smt. Prabharani Jangde was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat - Lachchanpur, Tehsil - Bhatapara, Distt. Baloda Bazar. Said Gram Panchayat consists of one Sarpanch and 10 Panchas. On 18-5-2011, 9 Panchas including the petitioner submitted notice of No - Confidence Motion against respondent No. 1 before the prescribed authority i.e. Sub-Division Officer, who after verification of the signatures and satisfying himself, appointed Presiding Officer and fixed the date as 07/06/2011 for consideration of the said motion. On 07/06/2011 No - Confidence Motion was passed against respondent No.1 as 9 Panchas voted against respondent No. 1, 1 in her favour and 1 vote was declared invalid.

4. Indisputably, respondent No. 1 had duly participated in the proceedings of No - Confidence Motion and at the time of proceedings of the motion, neither any objection was raised by her nor the procedure which was adopted was assailed by her before the prescribed officer. Immediately after passing of No - Confidence Motion, the petitioner, who was Up - Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, became in - charge Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

5. The proceedings of No - Confidence Motion were subjected to reference by respondent No. 1 before the Additional Collector under S. 21(4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam . Vide order dated
1-8-2011 passed in the said reference, the Additional Collector set aside the proceedings of No - Confidence Motion holding that proper procedure as prescribed in sub-rule (3) of R.3 of the C.G. 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") have not been followed.

6. The said order of the Additional Collector was assailed by the petitioner and one Sukhram before the Commissioner in revision No. 523 / A - 89/2010-11 and vide order dated 23/07/2013 the Commissioner has dismissed the revision holding that the same is not maintainable. It is this order of the Commissioner dated 23/07/2013 and that of the Additional Collector dated 01/08/2011 which have been assailed in the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:
(i) that the No - Confidence Motion was passed by thumping majority i.e. 9 voted against respondent No. 1 whereas only one vote was cast in favour of respondent No. 1 and as such, respondent No. 1 has no authority to continue as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat - Lachchanpur;
(ii) that even if the meeting of No - Confidence Motion was not convened within 15 days from the date of issuance of notice i.e. 18/05/2011, it will not vitiate the proceedings of No - Confidence Motion and the ultimate result;
(iii) that as no prejudice has been caused to respondent No. 1, she cannot assail the proceedings of No - Confidence Motion;
(iv) that once respondent No.1 had duly participated in the proceedings of No - Confidence Motion but failed to secure the confidence of the members, she has absolutely no right to continue on her post.