Smt. Anjana Rajesh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5104 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                       NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WA No. 272 of 2022

Smt. Anjana Rajesh Thakur Aged About 47 Years President Nagar
Panchayat Thana Khamariya, District Bemetara, Chhatisgarh.
                                                                ---- Appellant
                                 Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
      Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2.    The Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
3.    The Joint Collector District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
4.    Smt. Durga Vishnu Mandle Councillor Ward No. 1 Thana
      Khamariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
5.    Smt. Titli Gaurav Bindal Councillor Ward No. 5 Thana Khamariya,
      District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
6.    Rina Sinha Councillor Ward No. 6 Thana Khamariya, District
      Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
7.    Shri Kanhaiya Nirmalkar Councillor Ward No. 8 Thana Khamariya,
      District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
8.    Shri Ganesh Kumar Mandavi Councillor Ward No. 9 Thana
      Khamariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
9.    Shri Yogesh Tiwari Councillor Ward No. 10 Thana Khamariya,
      District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
10.   Smt. Afsana Kareem Beg Councillor Ward No. 11 Thana
      Khamariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
11.   Shri Dhanshyam Gandharv Councillor Ward No. 13 Thana
      Khamariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
12.   Shri Mahesh Nishad Councillor Ward No. 15 Thana Khamariya,
      District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
                                                            ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents No. 4 to 12 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

10.08.2022

Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General,

appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Vivek

Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 4 to 12.

2. Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order dated 23.05.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2399 of 2022, whereby,

the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

3. The appellant was elected as a Councillor from Ward No. 07 in

Nagar Panchayat Thana Khamariya in the election that was held in the

year 2019 and subsequently, she was elected as President by the elected

Councillors.

4. There is no dispute that Nagar Panchayat Thana Khamariya

consists of 15 Councillors.

5. A requisition for holding "No Confidence Motion" against the

appellant was submitted by 09 Councillors on 10.05.2022 and on the

basis thereon, the Collector convened a special meeting in terms of

Section 43-A of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, for short, the

Act of 1961, on 25.05.2022 at 11:00 am in the office of the Nagar

Panchayat. The Joint Collector was nominated to preside over the

meeting.

6. The writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid notice dated

10.05.2022 primarily on the ground that copy of the requisition was not

made available to the appellant along with the notice dated 10.05.2022

and that the notice also did not indicate the names of the requisitionists

who had asked for holding meeting for No Confidence Motion.

7. The learned Single Judge, by the order impugned, dismissed the

writ petition.

8. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel submits that fairness in action

demands that a copy of the requisition should have been sent along with

the notice dated 10.05.2022 to enable the appellant to face the No

Confidence Motion in an appropriate manner. He has, in this context,

relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant

Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, reported in LAWS(SC) 2012 3 4,

with particular reference to paragraph 17 thereon.

9. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel submits that under Section

43-A (2) (i) of the act of 1961, a meeting has to be convened forthwith on

the requisition signed by not less than one-sixth of the total number of

elected Councillors constituting the Council for the time being and in the

instant case, when 09 Councillors out of 15 had given the requisition, the

Collector was duty bound to convene a meeting for discussing the No

Confidence Motion.

10. It is further submitted that Section 43-A does not provide for giving

copy of the requisition along with notice and in absence of any challenge

to the provision, submission of Mr. Jha cannot be entertained.

11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties and have perused the materials on record.

12. The decision in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) is

rendered in the context of removal of elected members of the Panchayat

Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies and therefore, the judgment in

the context of removal of a elected member is distinguishable with a No

Confidence Motion moved against an elected member by the members of

the body itself.

13. Taking note of a similar argument advanced in the case of Satya

Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WA No. 284 of 2022), this Court

by the judgment dated 10.08.2022, at paragraph 27, had observed as

follows:

"27. In absence of a plea raised in writ petition with

regard to the contention advanced before us that the copy

of the requisition was required to be sent by the Collector

along with the notice convening the meeting for holding

discussion on no-confidence motion and language of

Section 43-A having not prescribed that copy of requisition

and/or allegations, if any, are required to be sent along with

the notice, we are not examining the aforesaid plea in the

present appeal. We leave the question open to be

determined in an appropriate case when a plea is

specifically raised challenging the relevant provision."

14. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal and

accordingly, the same is dismissed. Though the meeting was convened

on 25.05.2022, because of the interim order passed by this Court on

24.05.2022, the meeting could not be held. The Collector is directed to

convene a special meeting forthwith to consider the "No Confidence

Motion". No cost.

                      Sd/-                                       Sd/-
            (Arup Kumar Goswami)                         (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                 Chief Justice                                  Judge



Hem