The right to speak in a no-confidence motion is a mandatory provision under the Panchayat Act, and its violation results in invalidation of the motion.

1. The seminal issue involved in this petition is '" - Whether a resolution for ouster of the office bearer of a Gram Panchayat by way of no confidence motion is sustainable when the office bearer i.e. Sarpanch has not been allowed to speak when the resolution was discussed in the house?

2. Without adverting to unnecessary details, suffice it would be to mention that a motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner under S.21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, 1993') read with 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 (for short 'the Rules, 1994') and accordingly a meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened on 9-3-2016 for consideration. The proceedings of the said meeting records that Smt. Malati Mahant, Panch, was allowed to table and speak for the motion of no confidence to which she replied that the petitioner attends the meeting of Panchayat after consuming liquor and does not accede to the suggestions given by the office bearers of the Panchayat.

3. The Presiding Officer, thereafter, records that the members of the Panchayat present in the meeting were informed about the provisions of S.21 of the Act, 1993 and the method of voting prescribed under the Rules. The members, thereafter, casted their vote. The petitioner moved away from the place of meeting on the pretext of attending the nature's call and did not return for about 15 minutes, therefore, the counting was done in his absence wherein it was found that 10 votes polled in favour of motion and 2 votes against it. The petitioner came back at the place of meeting immediately after the counting. The Presiding Officer declared that the no confidence motion has been passed by the required majority.

4. Shri Ramesh Kumar Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was neither apprised of his right to speak nor was invited or allowed to speak in the meeting, therefore, the same being in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in R.5 of the Rules, 1994, the entire meeting is vitiated.

5. Shri Sushobit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.11, would submit that the petitioner himself left the place of meeting on the pretext of attending nature's call and came back after the counting, therefore, he has waived his right to speak and it is not a case of violation of mandatory provisions. He would further submit that as per sub-rule (4) of R.5 of the R.1994, the right to speak is only with the mover of motion and for others it is optional, therefore, directory. He would read the relevant provisions.

6. Ms. K. Tripti Rao, learned counsel appearing for the State, would oppose the writ petition.

7. S.21 of the Act, 1993 and R.5 (4) of the Rules, 1994 being relevant for deciding the issue involved, they are re - produced hereunder: S.21 of the Act, 1993:

21. No - confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up - Sarpanch. -
(1) On a motion of noconfidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three fourth of the panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or U