Chattisgarh High Court
Anjori Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 412 of 2022
1. Anjori Ram Sahu S/o Shri Sukchain Sahu Aged About 51 Years Up-
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Darchura, District Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
2. Shyama Mande W/o Shri Manoj Mande Aged About 32 Years Panch,
Ward No. 1, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.)
3. Baburam Lahre S/o Khema Lehre Aged About 50 Years, Panch, Ward
No. 3, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar Bhatapara
(C.G.)
4. Brijbhushan Dhritlahre S/o Latet Lahre Aged About 52 Years Panch,
Ward No. 4, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.)
5. Champa Bai Sahu W/o Kanhaiya Sahu Aged About 35 Years Panch,
Ward No. 5, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.)
6. Saraswati Dehre W/o Rajendra Dehre Aged About 38 Years Panch,
Ward No. 6, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.)
7. Smt. Pushpa Patel W/o Mahetaru Patel Aged About 42 Years Panch,
Ward No. 8, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.)
8. Smt. Pimpleshwari Sahu W/o Raju Sahu Aged About 35 Years
Panch, Ward No. 9, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.)
9. Dhaneshwari Patel W/o Tikaram Patel Aged About 30 Years Panch,
Ward No. 10, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.)
10. Ashish Yadav S/o Shri Firtu Yadav Aged About 37 Years Panch, Ward
No. 12, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar Bhatapara
(C.G.)
11. Rameshiya Sahu W/o Domeshwari Sahu Aged About 32 Years
Panch, Ward No. 13, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District
Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
12. Rijhan Singh Verma S/o Babulal Verma Aged About 38 Years Panch,
Ward No. 14, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.)
2
13. Narayan Pal S/o Bijoha Aged About 38 Years Panch, Ward No. 15,
Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
14. Laxmi Dhritlahare W/o Suresh Dhritlahare Aged About 40 Years
Panch, Ward No. 16, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District
Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
15. Dulourin Sahu W/o Kashiram Sahu Aged About 17 Years Panch,
Ward No. 17, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Balodabazar, District
Balodabazar (C.G.)
2. The Sub Divisional Officer Prescribed Authority, Simga, Disrict
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
3. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Simga, District
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
4. Smt. Kumari Diwakar W/o Shri Agarchand Diwakar Aged About 49
Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Darchura, Janpad Panchayat
Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Ms. Meena Shastri, Additional A.G.
For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
28.07.2022
Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Ms. Meena Shastri, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing
for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Supriya Upasne, learned counsel,
appearing for respondent No.4.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 15.07.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3037 of 2022, which was
instituted by the present respondent No.4. The writ petition was allowed
holding that the order dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent No.2,
convening a meeting for discussing a no confidence motion on 08.07.2022,
is beyond the period of 15 days from the date of notice dated 20.06.2022
given for moving a no confidence motion against the respondent No.4, who
is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Darchura, and therefore, violative of
Rule 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchyat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch
Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke Virudh
Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules of 1994').
3. It is submitted by Mr. Khetrapal that the appellants have no say in
fixing the date for considering the no confidence motion and the decision of
the learned Single Judge to set aside the order dated 30.06.2022 only on
the ground that meeting was convened beyond the period of 15 days from
the date of receipt of the requisition notice may not be correct. However, he
submits that he would not press the aforesaid point in the present appeal
as the appellants would be satisfied if a clarification is given by this Court
that the appellants would be at liberty to move a fresh no confidence
motion, in accordance with law, against the respondent No.4.
4. Ms. Upasne submits that in view of the interim order dated
08.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, meeting of no confidence
motion had been held on 08.07.2022. However, as result of no confidence
motion was directed to be not acted upon till the next date of hearing on
15.07.2022 and as, on 15.07.2022, the very order dated 30.06.2022, by
which the meeting for holding the no confidence motion was convened,
was set aside, result of the no confidence motion had not been declared.
5. Rule 21(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for
short 'the Act of 1993'), reads as follows :
"(3) No-confidence motion shall not lie against the
Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of --
(i) one year from the date on which the
Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch enter their respective office;
(ii) six months preceding the date on which the
term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpach, as the
case may be, expires;
(iii) one year from the date on which previous
motion of no-confidence was rejected."
6. As the meeting was not convened within a period of 15 days from the
date of receipt of requisition, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned
order, had held the meeting to be beyond the prescribed period of time and
thus, had set aside the order dated 30.06.2022.
7. Present is a case where though the meeting for discussing no
confidence motion was held, the outcome of the same is not declared. In
the present circumstance, it cannot be said that the motion initiated by the
present appellants vide requisition dated 20.06.2022 had been defeated
and/or rejected and therefore, the embargo, as provided under Rule 21(3)
of the Act of 1993, will not come into play.
8. With the above clarification, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
