No obligation on the Collector to verify allegations in no-confidence requisition; statutory compliance is sufficient.

1. Heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 28.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 2408 of 2022.

3. Facts, as presented in the writ petition, inter alia, are that the petitioner was declared elected as a Councilor of Ward No. 14 of Municipal Council, Rahod. Thereafter, the elected Councilors elected her as the President of the Municipal Council, Rahod. Though she had facilitated various works being sanctioned by the Government of Chhattisgarh, the respondent No.4, who is the vice - chairman of the Municipal Council, because of jealousy and ill will, had filed a requisition of no - confidence motion before the respondent No.2 i.e., the Collector, District - Janjgir - Champa, on vague charges of not fulfilling their illegal demands. The petitioner had filed an application for rejection of requisition of the no - confidence motion and that Dayashankar Gond, Councilor of Ward No.1 had informed her that his signature was obtained by fraud in the requisition dated 19.05.2022. It is pleaded in the writ petition that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before taking any action on the request for holding the no - confidence motion. It is also alleged that the respondent No.2 had not ensured the authenticity of the signatures of the Councilors.

4. The learned Single Judge, relying on the provisions contained in S.43 - A of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961'), observed that when the statutory compliance had been made, a motion cannot be defeated by any technical reason, though the same is also not demonstrated before the Court. It was recorded that the Collector had issued a proper notice and there is no violation of principles of natural justice and no satisfaction or preliminary enquiry is needed in law and holding as such, refused to interfere with the notice dated 17.05.2022 issued by the Collector and designated officer i.e., respondent No.2, in terms of S.43 - A (2)(ii) of the Act of 1961 for convening a special meeting with regard to no - confidence motion against the petitioner.

5. Mr. Singh submits that the allegations made in the requisition notice dated 04.05.2022 are wholly unfounded and the Collector was obliged to make an enquiry about the genuineness of the allegations before convening a meeting for holding a no - confidence motion. He has further submitted that the Collector committed illegality in not enclosing the copy of the requisition notice along with the notice dated 17.05.2022 for convening a meeting for discussing no - confidence motion against the petitioner and as such, the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Mr. Tiwari submits that on the ground that the requisitionists had not been made parties to the proceedings alone, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed. He has submitted that there is no requirement in law that the Collector, while convening the meeting, has to forward the requisition and / or the allegations received and in the instant case, the Collector had strictly acted in accordance with law. It is submitted by him that no duty is cast on the Collector to enquire about the veracity of allegations, if any, and the Collector is required to convene a meeting forthwith on a requisition signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of elected Co