IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 34643 of 2025 SMT. PRIYANKA DHURVE Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sourabh Kumar Sharma - Advocate appearing through Video Conferencing and Shri Vikash Kumar Santu - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

Shri Deepak Tiwari - Advocate for respondents No.6 to 19.

ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 07/08/2025 (Annexure-P/6) passed by Collector, Balaghat, whereby petitioner's Appeal under Section 21(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short 'Adhiniyam, 1993'), has been rejected.

2 . It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Palehara, Panchayat Birasa, District Balaghat and has assumed the charge of Sarpanch with effect from 14/07/2022. The strength of Panchayat in total is 15 including Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. Earlier, some of the Panchs tried to move a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner with signatures of 13 Panchs, to which objections were raised. They jointly filed application before the Prescribed Authority stating that they are not in support of the No Confidence Motion. Thereafter, a general body meeting was called, however, there was no resolution for No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Officer, Janpad Panchayat accepted the notice of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner and appointed CEO Janpad Panchayat Birsa to convene the meeting for consideration of No Confidence Motion vide order dated 15/05/2025. After receiving a notice under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1994') and after satisfying himself about the admissibility of the notice, SDO had fixed the date, time and place for meeting of the Gram Panchayat to consider the No Confidence Motion vide communication dated 23/05/2025.

3. It is argued that according to the rules made under the M.P. Gram Sabha (Procedure of Meeting) Rules, 2001, the meeting is required to be held at headquarters of the Gram Sabha concerned and according to the language of the meeting dated 31/05/2025, it is revealed that proposal of No Confidence Motion against Sarpanch was forwarded without acceptance of the said resolution which is not tenable in eyes of law. It is further submitted that when a meeting is called for discussion and for passing of No Confidence Motion before passing such resolution, it is mandatory to dispatch the notice to call for such a meeting upon all Panchs before 7 clear days of the date fixed for meeting and if no such notice is dispatched, motion passed in such meeting will be declared as null and void.

4. It is argued that in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of

1994 regarding calling of the meeting for discussion, no notice has been dispatched giving clear 7 days time and fixing the date for meeting. As the Prescribed Authority had not followed the due procedure, it is violation of Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994 as well as violation of doctrine of procedural legitimate expectation. Thus, the very notice itself fails. It is further contended that the Prescribed Authority is required to satisfy himself about its admissibility and on being satisfied, he shall fix a date, time and place for meeting which shall not be more than 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice. The notice which has been received by the Prescribed Officer was on 23/05/2025. It was accepted on 29/05/2025 and he has fixed the date on 31/05/2025 i.e. after 2 days for meeting of Gram Sabha. Therefore, application of mind is n