Chattisgarh High Court
Ghanshyam Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 January, 2022
1
(Proceedings through video conferencing)
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 16 of 2022
Ghanshyam Verma, S/o Samaru Verma, aged about 45 years, R/o Ward
No.7, Kaudiya, Block Palari, District Balodabazar Bahtapara,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authority
(Panchayat) Balodabazar, Distirct Balodabazar, Bahatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
4. The Tahsildar, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
5. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Balodabazar,
Chhattisgarh.
6. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kodiya, Janpad Panchayat,
Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
7. Smt. Sarawati Gritlahre, W/o Alakh Ram Grithlahre, aged about 48
years, R/o Village Kodiya, Block Pallari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy Advocate
General.
For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
11.01.2022
Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for
respondents No. 1 to 6 and Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 7/ writ petitioner.
2. I.A. No. 2 of 2022 is an application for grant of leave to prefer the appeal
against the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition (C) No. 5528 of 2021, whereby, the effect and operation of notice
dated 20.12.2021 and the application dated 10.12.2021 of Gram Panchayat,
Kaudiya as well as the proceeding before the respondent No. 3, i.e., Sub
Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authority (Panchayat) were stayed
till the next date of hearing.
3. The writ petition was also admitted and by the said order, the case was
directed to be listed after four weeks. Notice was directed to be issued to
respondents No. 5 and 6 by ordinary post as well as registered post.
4. Mr. Khetrapal submits that the appellant along with '9 Panchas' of the
Gram Panchayat, Kaudiya had submitted a notice before the respondent No. 3,
as prescribed under Rule 3(1) 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 (for
short, 'the Rules of 1994'), proposing a 'no confidence motion' against the
respondent No. 7/ writ petitioner.
5. Although the said notice was, amongst others, assailed in the writ
petition, the requisitionists of the 'no confidence motion' were not made parties.
It is submitted that great prejudice has been caused to the appellant in view of
passing of the impugned interim order, that too, when he was not arrayed as a
party/ respondent.
6. On due consideration, we are of the opinion that leave ought to be
granted. Accordingly, leave is granted.
7. I.A. No. 2 of 2022 is stand disposed of.
8. Also heard learned counsel for the parties on the appeal.
9. A perusal of the order dated 27.12.2021 goes to show that contentions
were advanced by the writ petitioner that there was infraction of Sub-Rule (3) of
the Rules of 1994 in specifying date, time and place of the meeting for
considering the 'no confidence motion'.
10. The date fixed for 'no confidence motion' was fixed on 28.12.2021, which
is already over.
11. Considering the matter in its entirety, the appellant is arrayed as
respondent No. 7 in the writ petition. It is also provided that notices on
respondents No. 5 and 6 are to be treated as served, as for respondents No. 5
and 6, who are government employees, Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned Deputy
Advocate General has entered appearance in this appeal.
12. In that view of the matter, service is complete in the writ petition.
13. In the attending facts and circumstances, instead of considering the
grievance raised in the appeal, it is considered appropriate to request the
learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition as early as possible and for
that purpose, Registry is directed to list the case before the Single Judge
having roster on 1st of February, 2022.
14. Pleadings may be completed in the meantime.
15. The writ appeal stands, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
