Order on Board

23.01.2024

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by the Collector, District Sakti dated 12.01.2024 for the motion of no- confidence against the petitioner, who is the President, Nagar Panchayat, Sakti.

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that the election of Nagar Panchayat, Sakti was held in January 2019 and 18 councillors were elected in the election. The petitioner was elected as the President of Nagar Panchayat, Sakti by 18 councillors on 06.01.2020. On 12.01.2024, 5 councillors, out of a total of 18 councillors sent a requisition to the Collector under Section 43A of the CG Municipalities Act, 1961 (henceforth “the Act, 1961”) to bring the motion of no-confidence against the President, Nagar Panchayat, Sakti imputing certain allegations. The Collector took cognizance of the matter on 12.01.2024 and sent the requisition to the Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Sakti for verification of signatures. Thereafter, the Collector specified the date, time and place for the no-confidence motion and appointed the Sub- Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Sakti to preside over the meeting. Notices were sent to the petitioner and other members of Nagar Panchayat, Sakti on the same date. The petitioner, who is the President of Nagar Panchayat, Sakti has challenged the order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Collector, District Sakti.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Section 43-A of the Act, 1961 deals with the no-confidence motion against the Vice- President. He would further submit that a no-confidence motion cannot be brought against the petitioner, as in the provision itself only the term ‘Vice President’ is mentioned. He would also submit that the Collector on 12.01.2024, when the requisition was placed before him, sent the requisition for verification of signatures to the Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Sakti, such exercise is contrary to the provisions contained under Section 43-A of the Act, 1961. He would further argue that the Collector appointed the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) to preside over the meeting of no-confidence motion, whereas, the Collector himself is empowered to exercise such power, therefore also the entire proceeding got vitiated. He would further contend that an undated complaint was made to the Collector, Sakti by the councillors and the complaint is not supported with an afÏdavit, and therefore also the Collector ought not to have taken cognizance of such complaint. He would next contend that the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint was not enquired into by the Collector. He would further argue that the Collector, Sakti without satisfying himself according to the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1961 passed the order to convene the meeting of no-confidence, therefore, the entire proceeding initiated by the Collector is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would submit that Section 43-A of the Act, 1961 was amended in the year 2019 and the word “Vice President” was inserted. They would further submit that a no- confidence motion can be brought against the President as well as the Vice president. They would also submit that the requisition was made according to provisions of Section 43-(2)(i) of the Act, 1961 and there is no requirement for an afÏdavit in support of such requisition. They would further contend that the requisition was given to the Collector by the requisite numbers of elected councillors i.e. more than 1/6th; therefore, the requisition was valid. It is further stated that the Collector may appoint any Class-I OfÏcer to preside over the meeting and Class-II OfÏcer in the case of Nagar Panchayat. In the present case, the Collector has appointed the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), who is a Class II OfÏcer and a competent p