Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sangeeta Manohar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1083 of 2022
1. Smt. Sangeeta Manohar Sahu W/o Shri Manohar Sahu Aged About 52
Years President Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Panchayat Department
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Collector District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
5. Surendra Yadu S/o Jhaduram Yadu, Member Janpad Member
Constituency No. 6, R/o Akaltara, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
6. Hemant S/o Kejuram Dhruw Aged About 30 Years Janpad Member
Constituency No. 4, R/o Village- Madhuban, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
7. Narendra Kumar Yadav S/o Chintaram Yadav Aged About 30 Years Janpad
Member Constituency No. 14, R/o Village- Gudeliya, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
8. Rameshwar S/o Tungnath Aged About 48 Years Janpad Member
Constituency No. 5, R/o Village- Kadar, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
9. Khilawan Prasad Chaturvedi S/o Kamta Prasad Chaturvedi Aged About 50
Years Janpad Member Constituency No. 22, R/o Village- Gurra, Tahsil-
Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
10. Smt. Sumitra W/o Parmeshwar Verma Aged About 42 Years Janpad
Member Constituency No. 10, R/o Village- Kodwa, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
11. Smt. Shailkumari W/o Shri Naresh Netam Aged About 38 Years
Janpad Member Constituency No. 8, R/o Village- Nipaniya, Tahsil-
Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
12. Smt. Shakuntala W/o Ramashankar Patel Aged About 45 Years
Janpad Member Constituency No. 15, R/o Village- Karhibazar, Tahsil-
Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
13. Smt. Pali Bai W/o Anil Diwakar Aged About 50 Years Janpad
Member Constituency No. 17, R/o Village- Borsi, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
14. Smt. Subhadra W/o Santosh Dhruw Aged About 32 Years Janpad
Member Constituency No. 9, R/o Village- Bharatpur, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
2
15. Smt. Jamuna W/o Manharan Yadu Aged About 50 Years Janpad
Member Constituency No. 11, R/o Village- Lalpur, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
16. Narsingh Yadav S/o Baburam Yadav Aged About 42 Years Janpad
Member Constituency No. 13, R/o Village- Khaira, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
17. Smt. Nandani W/o Avinash Aged About 22 Years Janpad Member
Constituency No. 16, R/o Village- Kosmanda, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
18. Smt. Bhagwati W/o Santosh Lahre Aged About 26 Years Janpad
Member Constituency No. 18, R/o Village- Kalmidih, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
19. Shri Itwari Jangde S/o Jhaduram Jangde Aged About 50 Years
Janpad Member Constituency No. 23, R/o Village- Rajadhar, Tahsil-
Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
20. Rameshar Dhruw S/o Vishram Dhruw Aged About 40 Years Janpad
Member Constituency No. 12, R/o Village- Patan, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
21. Smt. Santoshi Dore W/o Deepak Dore Aged About 36 Years Janpad
Member Constituency No. 25, R/o Village- Tikuliya, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
22. Smt. Swati Verma W/o Dinesh Verma Aged About 34 Years Janpad
Member Constituency No. 20, R/o Village- Maldi, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
23. Smt. Parvati Yadav W/o Rajendra Yadav Aged About 29 Years
Janpad Member Constituency No. 21, R/o Village- Mirgi, Tahsil- Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
. ---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.
For State : Shri P. Acharya, P.L.
For Res No. 5 to 23 : Shri Monika Singh, Advocate
P
For
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
28/02/2022
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of
the No Confidence Motion initiated by the respondent nos. 5 to 23
against the petitioner.
2. Challenge to the proceedings is primarily on the ground that there is
a violation of the statutory provisions and the requirement provided
under the Statue.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that none of the conditions that is
envisaged under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram
Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat
Tatha Zila Panchayat ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh
Avishwas Prastav) Niyam 1994, is satisfied before initiating
proceedings.
4. The challenge further is on the ground that the prescribed Authority
should have himself got satisfied on the notice that was submitted for
No Confidence Motion meeting and in the instant case, the District
Collector who is the prescribed Authority has marked the verification
part to the CEO Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara which is otherwise not
permissible under the Statue. The second ground of the petitioner is
that the requirement so far as sub rule (2) of Rule 3 in-respect-of a
certificate stating the date the notice also does not seem to have
been fulfilled in the instant case before initiating of the proceeding.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner refers to the judgment of Chandrika
Devi Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided by this Court on
10.05.2012 in WP(C) No. 826 of 2012 in support of his contention.
6. The plain perusal of the proceeding in the instant case would reflect
that the Collector has received a notice signed by the members of the
Janpad Panchayat and on 08.02.2022, the District Collector in order
to have subject satisfaction on the notices received for no confidence
motion, directed the CEO to verify the signatures of all the members
of the Janpad Panchayat and to report back to the District Collector
within two days. The matter was thereafter placed before the District
Collector along with a report of the CEO and the proceedings were
again drawn on 11.02.2022. That on 11.02.2022 also the Collector on
verification of the report of the CEO found that there were some
discrepancies detected or reflected so far as the signatures of a few
members of the Janpad Panchayat are concerned. Therefore, to get
it further scrutinized, the Collector further directed the CEO of Janpad
Panchayat to call upon the said individuals/ persons and to enquire
about their signatures and thereafter to submit a report. The CEO
again submitted his report on 17.02.2022 to the District Collector, on
the basis of which the District Collector thereafter passed the order
on 22.02.2022 for holding of a No Confidence Motion meeting on the
02.03.2022 at 11:00 O'clock.
7. Given the aforesaid proceedings, prima facie this Court is of the
opinion that the requirement under sub rules (1)(2)(3) of Rule 3 of the
aforementioned Rule 1994 has been duly taken care of by the District
Collector. Only because the matter was subjected to scrutiny by the
CEO by itself would not get the proceeding vitiated as the same was
done at the behest of the District Collector himself who otherwise is
the Prescribed Authority.
8. In a No Confidence Motion what is primarily to be seen, is the
prejudice that would be caused from the allegation and the
contention that the petitioner has raised. This Court does not find any
strong prejudiced being caused only upon the enquiry being
conducted by the CEO at the behest of the District Collector.
9. Now all would depend upon the meeting that is convened on
02.03.2022 wherein the respondent-authorities are expected to
provide the petitioner also an opportunity to speak and explain and
thereafter appropriate decision shall be taken.
10. As regard, the judgment referred to by the counsel for
petitioner in the case of Chandrika Devi Verma (Supra) is concerned,
this Court is of the opinion that the findings in that case were under
an entirely different contextual backdrop as compared to the facts of
the present case, where the initiation of the proceedings is by the
Collector himself and it is only the scrutiny of the signatures, in
instant case did the Collector take the assistance of the CEO of the
Janpad Panchayat and who after scrutiny has submitted his report on
both the occasions back to the Collector as directed for an
appropriate decision and it is the Collector himself who had
proceeded with the provisions of the Rule 1994. Thus the judgment
rendered in the case of Chandrika Devi Verma is distinguishable on
its facts itself. This Court therefore does not find any strong case
made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with the No
Confidence Motion initiated by the respondents. The present writ
petition thus fails and is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Jyoti
