A no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch is legally unsustainable if the mandatory seven-day clear notice period required under Rule 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Rules, 1994, is not provided to the members.

Order on Board

(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an elected Sarpach of Village Panchayat Deori, and was elected on 22.02.2025. Notice dated 09.04.2026 (Annexure-P/1) and subsequent notice dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure-P/2) seeking No-confidence motion have been issued by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tilda-Nevra, District Raipur, which is against the provisions of Rule 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”). He would further submit that Rule 3 of the Rules 1994 specifically prescribes that seven days clear notice is required to be given before the meeting is held, whereas in the instant case, the notice is dated 09.04.2026 and seven days would be up-till 16.04.2026, i.e. today and the meeting is going to be held today. Therefore, there is no seven days clear time gap has been given as required under sub rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. He placed his reliance in case of Shrinarayan Laxman Prasad Tiwari & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors {1998 (1) M.P.L.J .} and order dated 19.3.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench in WPC No.1689/2021 (Santosh Kumar Kaiwart vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors).

3. The relevant portion of judgment decided by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for the No-Confidence Motion in case of Shrinarayan Laxman Prasad Tiwari (supra) is reproduced hereunder:-

“6. Rule 3(3) of the Rules, which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:-

(3) On receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to sections 21(3), 28(3) and 35(3), as the case may be. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting.

7. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that notice of the meeting to consider the no confidence motion has to be despatched by the Prescribed Authority through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to every member of the Panchayat concerned 7 days before the meeting.”

4. The above-cited judgment has also been relied by this Court in Santosh Kumar Kaiwart (supra).

5. Considering the ratio laid down and the time gap in the present case, it is observed that the No-Confidence Motion pursuant to notice dated 09.04.2026 (Annexure-P/1) and 10.04.2026 (Annexure-P/2) shall not be carried out. Accordingly, the said notices (Annexure-P/1 & P/2) are hereby quashed. It is further made clear that this order will not come into way for further consideration of any No-Confidence Motion, which is done in accordance with the Rules, 1994.

6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to apprise respondent No.6/competent Authority regarding this order forthwith.

8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, st