Minor procedural lapses regarding the notice period for a no-confidence motion do not automatically vitiate the entire proceeding if the defect is curable and no substantive prejudice or failure of justice is demonstrated to the affected party.

Order on Board

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

1. The appellant/writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) has preferred this writ appeal calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 29/05/2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.2687/2026.

2. The petitioner had earlier invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated for consideration of a motion of no confidence against her. The principal challenge before the learned Single Judge was founded on 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”) read with Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, “the Act, 1993”). It was contended that the mandatory requirement of seven days' notice had not been complied with.

3. The specific case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that although the notice convening the meeting for consideration of the no- confidence motion was issued on 20/05/2026 fixing 29/05/2026 as the date of meeting, the same was served upon her only on 24/05/2026. Therefore, according to the petitioner, she was not afforded the mandatory notice period contemplated under the Act, 1993 and the Rules, 1994.

4. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, the learned Single Judge found prima facie substance in the grievance of the petitioner regarding insufficiency of notice and accordingly directed that the proposed meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion be kept in abeyance for two days and be conducted only after expiry of the requisite period of seven days, i.e., on or after 31/05/2026. Relevant observation of the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:-

“From perusal of the dispatch register produced by the learned Dy. Advocate General, it is quite vivid that the notice was issued to the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Balodabazar for service of notice on 20.05.2026 as per practice followed under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam who in turn has to serve the notice to the petitioner who in the present case has received the notice on 24.05.2026 and the no- confidence motion is to be conducted on 29.05.2026. Thus, Prima-facie it cannot be said that within 7 days the notice has been given to the petitioner.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that 7 days notice is required to be completed for the purpose of receipt of notice from the date it has been dispatched. This submission deserves to be rejected as the rules mandates 7 days notice from the date it has been dispatched, but this 7 days has to be counted from the date when Janpad Panchayat has dispatched the notice as it is the ultimate dispatcher of the notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer for conducting the no-confidence motion and the dispatch register shown by the State does not reflect that the said notice has been dispatched on 20.05.2026 to the petitioner therefore, the no-confidence motion directed to be kept in abeyance for two days and shall take place only after 7 days of the notice i.e. on or after 31.05.2026.

7. The petitioner is directed to cooperate on the no-confidence motion and be ready with all the records available to her and in turn the Sub-Divisional Officer shall examine the same in accorda