Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Ranu Hemant Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 197 of 2022
Smt. Ranu Hemant Sonkar W/o Hemant Sonkar Aged About 38 Years
President Nagar Panchayat Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayt And Rural
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar District-
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer Gunderdehi, District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
5. Tikaram Nishad S/o Suresh Nishad Parshad, Ward No. 1, R/o
Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
6. Harish Nishad S/o Kashiram Nishad Parshad, Ward No. 2, R/o
Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
7. Santosh Netam S/o Shri Chanduram Netam Parshad, Ward No. 3,
R/o Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
8. Vijay Kumar Sonkar S/o Shri Kuber Sonkar Parshad, Ward No. 3, R/o
Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
9. Ramkrishna Sonkar S/o Shri Gonvind Sonkar Parshad, Ward No. 5,
R/o Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
10. Santoshi Sahu W/o Shri Dharmendra Sahu Parshad, Ward No. 8, R/o
Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
11. Salimuddin S/o Kalimuddin Parshad, Ward No. 9, R/o Gunderdehi
District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
12. Hemlata Soni W/o Shri Sohan Soni Parshad, Ward No. 10, R/o
Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
13. Sanju Sonkar S/o Late Ganesh Sonkar Parshad, Ward No. 12, R/o
Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
2
14. Varsha Rani Chandrakar W/o Shri K. K. Raju Chandrakar Parshad,
Ward No. 13, R/o Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
15. Smt. Kuleshwari Sevak Mahipal W/o Shri Sevak Mahipal Parshad,
Ward No. 14, R/o Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
16. Parwati Thakur W/o Shri Rewa Ram Thakur Parshad, Ward No. 15,
R/o Gunderdehi District- Balod Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha
For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy A.G.
For Respondent Nos.5 to 16 : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 04.08.2022
Date of Judgment : 18.08.2022
_________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
C A V Judgment
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General,
appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4, and Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu,
learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 5 to 16.
2. Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order dated 11.04.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1774 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, Gunderdehi on 04.01.2020 and subsequently, she was elected
as President by the elected Councillors.
4. There is no dispute that Nagar Panchayat, Gunderdeshi consists
of 15 Councillors.
5. A requisition for holding "No Confidence Motion" against the appellant
was submitted by 13 Councillors, which was received by the Collector,
Balod on 01.04.2022. and on the basis thereon, the Collector, by an order
dated 04.04.2022, convened a special meeting in terms of Section 43-A of
the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, for short, the Act of 1961, on
18.04.2022 at 11:00 am in the office of the Nagar Panchayat and also
nominated an officer to preside over the meeting.
6. The writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid order dated
04.04.2022 primarily on the ground that copy of the requisition was not
made available to the appellant along with the order dated 10.05.2022 and
that the order also did not indicate the names of the requisitionists who had
asked for holding meeting for No Confidence Motion as also the
allegations, if any.
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 order 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. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 16 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 13 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
18.04.2022, because of the interim order passed by this Court on
17.04.2022, 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
Chandra
