Priyanka Dhurve vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Section 21; 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 - Rule 3(3) - No-confidence motion against Sarpanch - Procedural irregularity - Notice period - Non-compliance with mandatory requirements does not necessarily result in nullification of the whole action if no substantial prejudice is caused to the party affected or if there is no failure of justice (Paras 17, 20).

(B) Procedure for calling no-confidence meeting - While the law prescribes an outer time limit of 15 days for calling a meeting, the meeting can be convened at any point prior to that period (Para 23).

Facts of the case:
An elected Sarpanch challenged an order rejecting an appeal against a no-confidence motion. The petitioner contended that the mandatory procedure under Rule 3(3) of the 1994 Rules was violated as the notice for the meeting was not dispatched seven clear days in advance, and the meeting was called only two days after the notice was received. It was further alleged that the authority entrusted with issuing the notice was improper and that she was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing before the appellate authority.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and had actually participated in the meeting on the scheduled date. The motion was passed by a significant majority (12 out of 13 members present). The court found that although the notice period was not strictly followed, the petitioner's participation and the resulting majority vote indicated that no substantial prejudice had been caused to her.

Issues: Whether the failure to provide the mandatory seven-day notice period and other procedural lapses in convening a no-confidence motion would invalidate the resolution and the subsequent order of the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Based on the principles established by the Full Bench, while the dispatch of notice is a mandatory provision, its non-compliance does not lead to automatic nullification unless it results in serious prejudice or failure of justice. Since the petitioner had actual knowledge and participated in the proceedings, the procedural infraction did not vitiate the outcome. (Paras 17, 20, 24).

Result: The petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. No-confidence motion removed elected Sarpanch; appeal under Section 21(4), Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was rejected; validity challenged under Article 226. (Para 2 , 10 , 11 )

2. Petitioner alleged non-compliance with mandatory notice procedure and lack of opportunity before the appellate authority; respondents asserted due service, compliance, and no prejudice. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 12 )

3. Writ petition dismissed; impugned no-confidence resolution and appellate rejection upheld; no order as to costs. (Para 24 , 25 )

4. What restrictions does Section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 impose on moving a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch?

A no-confidence motion cannot be moved within one year of assuming office, within six months before expiry of term, or within one year after rejection of a previous motion; the prescribed authority must be satisfied on these conditions. (Para 14 , 15 )

5. What is the consequence of non-compliance with the mandatory seven-day notice dispatch requirement under Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994?

The requirement is mandatory, but every non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the no-confidence resolution; the action will be nullified only if serious prejudice or failure of justice is shown. (Para 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 )

6. Does the fifteen-day period for convening a no-confidence meeting operate as an outer limit or a minimum waiting period?

It is an outer time limit; a meeting may be convened before fifteen days expire, although a meeting must be called within a reasonable period not later than fifteen days. (Para 19 , 23 )

7. Can a no-confidence resolution stand where the Sarpanch received notice only shortly before the meeting but participated and the motion passed by the required majority?

Yes, because no substantial prejudice was caused; participation in the meeting and passage of the motion by the required majority support validity despite short notice. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 )

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 not reflected. Even otherwise, the proceedings of issuance of notice for purpose of No Confidence need to be issued by CEO, whereas, in the present case the Sub-Divisional Officer had entrusted this job which is not permissible and is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Vee Emperor reported in AIR 1936 SC 253 and Shrinarayan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1998 (1) JLJ 124. It is argued that as the procedure prescr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VISHAL MISHRA, J.
Smt. Priyanka Dhurve - Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 34643 of 2025
Decided On : 22-01-2026

Procedural non-compliance in issuing notices for a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch does not automatically invalidate the proceedings if the affected party had actual knowledge and participated, provided no substantial prejudice or failure of justice occurred.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What restrictions does Section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 impose on moving a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch?

5. What is the consequence of non-compliance with the mandatory seven-day notice dispatch requirement under Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994?

6. Does the fifteen-day period for convening a no-confidence meeting operate as an outer limit or a minimum waiting period?

7. Can a no-confidence resolution stand where the Sarpanch received notice only shortly before the meeting but participated and the motion passed by the required majority?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURVISHAL MISHRA, J.Smt. Priyanka Dhurve - PetitionerVersusState of Madhya Pradesh and Others - RespondentsWrit Petition No. 34643 of 2025Decided On : 22-01-2026

Procedural non-compliance in issuing notices for a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch does not automatically invalidate the proceedings if the affected party had actual knowledge and participated, provided no substantial prejudice or failure of justice occurred.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What restrictions does Section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 impose on moving a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch?

5. What is the consequence of non-compliance with the mandatory seven-day notice dispatch requirement under Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994?

6. Does the fifteen-day period for convening a no-confidence meeting operate as an outer limit or a minimum waiting period?

7. Can a no-confidence resolution stand where the Sarpanch received notice only shortly before the meeting but participated and the motion passed by the required majority?

Cases Referred (7)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VISHAL MISHRA, J.
Smt. Priyanka Dhurve - Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 34643 of 2025
Decided On : 22-01-2026