Previous no-confidence motions must be rejected on merits to bar future motions under Chhattisgarh law.

1. Petitioner is an ousted Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kadadarha, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund. The office bearers of the said Gram Panchayat ousted him by passing a resolution on the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner on 7-9-2016.

2. There is no dispute about the satisfaction of the Rules as contained in 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 ('the Rules, 1994' henceforth) insofar as it relates to adherence of the procedure and meeting out the required number of panchas for passing a resolution of motion of no confidence.

3. The short question fallen for consideration in this petition is that -- in what circumstances a motion of no confidence brought earlier, but rejected within a period of one year would be a bar for consideration of fresh motion of no confidence by the Gram Panchayat ?

4. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would argue that the motion of no confidence was brought by the Panchas on 19-7-2016, which was rejected by the prescribed authority himself on 23-8-2016 and thereafter, the second motion was brought on 26-8-2016 i.e. within a period one year, which is not permissible in view of the provisions of S.21(3)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam , 1993 ('the Adhiniyam, 1993' henceforth).

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents including learned State counsel would argue that to attract the bar under S.21 (3) (iii) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 the previous motion of no - confidence should have been rejected on merits and not on technical grounds.

6. To dilate on the issue, it would be necessary to refer to S.21(3)(iii) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, which provides that no confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up - Sarpanch within a period of one year from the date on which previous motion of no - confidence was rejected.

7. In the case at hand, the prescribed authority rejected the application moved by the Panchas for bringing the motion of no - confidence on the ground that since the period of 15 days had already elapsed from the date of moving the application, the application itself elapsed in view of R.3 of the Rules, 1994 which mandates that when an application is presented before the prescribed authority for initiating the motion of no - confidence the meeting has to be fixed within 15 days from the date of receipt of application. Having noticed the provision, when the first motion of no - confidence was processed, the Sub Divisional Officer had no option, but to reject the application, however, the fact remains that the motion of no - confidence was never discussed in the house.

8. To attract the bar contained under S.21(3)(iii), the rejection of motion of no - confidence should be on merits and not on mere technicalities. This interpretation would serve the legislative intent because the set up of the provision contained in the Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules, 1994 needs adherence to the rule of purposive construction. The purpose being not to allow an incumbent Sarpanch who has lost the confidence of the house to remain in the office on the strength of technicalities, but not when the house had no occasion to discuss and vote on the motion. In a given case, the prescribed authority or any other officer may protect the incumbent Sarpanch who has lost the confidence of the house by not acting on the application for convening a meeting to cons