The time required to obtain a certified copy is excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing a dispute concerning a no-confidence motion under local law.

1. Smt. Pooja Rathor respondent No. 4 herein was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sioni on 01.02.2004. The petitioner and other Panchas moved a motion of no confidence against her to the Competent Authority. The said motion was tabled, discussed and carried out against her on 15.06.2016. The said respondent No.4 challenged the validity of motion carried out under sub-section (1) of S.21 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam , 1993 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1993' ) by raising dispute before the Collector on 29.06.2016 under S.21(4) of the Act of 1993.

2. The Collector by its order, dated 24.03.2017 allowed the dispute and set aside the motion of no confidence passed against respondent No. 4 finding that no confidence motion was not carried out in accordance with provisions contained in S.21(1) of the Act of 1993. The petitioner herein laid challenge before the Additional Commissioner to the order passed by the Collector, but he remained unsuccessful and has filed this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order passed by the learned Collector and learned Commissioner.

3. Mr. Manoj Paranjape learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit as under:

1. That the motion of no confidence was carried out strictly in accordance with provision contained in S.21(1) of the Act of 1993.

2. That motion of no confidence was passed on 15.06.2016 whereas the dispute was raised on 29.06.2016 which was beyond the period of seven days as prescribed in S.21(4) of the Act of 1993 and therefore order of Collector as upheld by learned Commissioner deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. K. A. Ansari learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would reply the abovestated submission made on behalf of petitioner as under:

1. That the Collector and Commissioner have rightly held that the motion of no confidence was not carried out in accordance with provision of S.21 (4) of the Act of 1993.

2. That motion of no confidence motion was allegedly carried out on 15.06.2016 and the respondent No.4 applied for certified copy of said resolution on 16.06.2016 but that was supplied on 28.06.2016 and dispute was referred to the Collector on 29.06.2016 with all promptitude, therefore it cannot be said that the dispute was raised with delay, therefore writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

6. In order to answer the submission raised on behalf of petitioner it would be appropriate to notice S.21(1) of the Act of 1993, which provides for motion of no confidence against Sarpanch and Up - Sarpanch as under:

'21. No confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up - Sarpanch - (1) On a motion of no - confidence 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 Up - Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up - Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him. Such meeting shall be convened in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint. The Sarpanch or the Up - Sarpanch, as the case may be,