Voting in no-confidence motions must adhere strictly to prescribed methods, such as secret ballots, without discretion from the Presiding Officer.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order (Annexure - P / 1) passed by the Collector, Balrampur - Ramanujganj dismissing her reference under S.21(4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (henceforth 'the Adhiniyam' ), which in turn was preferred challenging the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 12.3.2014 wherein the motion of no confidence was carried against the petitioner and she has been ousted from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mahewa.

2. The concerned Gram Panchayat consists of 13 office bearers including the Sarpanch. 10 Panchas moved an application before the prescribed authority on 24.2.2014 intending to bring a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. The prescribed authority issued a notice dated 28.2.2014 (Annexure - P / 5) appointing Naib Tehsildar, Wadrafnagar as Presiding Officer for convening the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for considering the motion. The meeting was convened on 12.3.2014 wherein 11 Panchas were present and all of them voted in favour of the motion. The Presiding Officer sent information to the Prescribed Authority whereupon the order (Annexure - P / 2) was issued declaring that the petitioner has ceased to remain Sarpanch on and from 12.3.2014.

3. The petitioner preferred a reference under S.21(4) of the Adhiniyam before the Collector. The Collector granted interim order in favour of the petitioner, however, by the impugned final order dated 30.7.2014, reference has been decided against the petitioner.

4. It has been urged before this Court that the Presiding Officer has violated the mandatory provisions by not conducting voting on the motion by a secret ballot; the petitioner was not noticed of the meeting, therefore, she was not allowed to participate in the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat, which is in violation of mandatory rules and principles of natural justice; the order (Annexure - P / 5) appointing the Presiding Officer for the meeting does not mention the date of meeting, therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated.

5. Learned State counsel has produced the record of the meeting maintained by the Presiding Officer. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 would submit that the petitioner had knowledge of the meeting, yet she chose not to attend, therefore, she cannot complain of procedural irregularities in the meeting or violation of principles of natural justice. He would further submit that since all the members present in the meeting voted in favour of the motion and they desired to cast their vote by show of hands, failure on the part of the Presiding Officer to use secret ballot would not be fatal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

7. The documents forming part of the writ petition and made available to this Court by the Presiding Officer would indicate that an application requesting for convening meeting of no confidence was moved on 24.2.2014 and the Prescribed Authority appointed the Presiding Officer on 28.2.2014 fixing the date of meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 12.3.2014. Thus, the meeting has been convened within 15 days from 28.2.2014 and the same is in accordance with first part of R.3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up - Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice - President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (for short 'the Rules, 1994' ). Although the petitioner is raising dispute about non issuance of notice to her or other Panchas, however, the record would reveal that Secretary of the