Ku. Seema Shrikant vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1182 Chatt

                                                                  NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                  Writ Petition (Civil) No.315 of 2022

   Ku. Seema Shrikant D/o Shri Khemlal Shrikant Aged About 29 Years
    Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pendri, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, R/o
    Village- Pendri, Post Nawagarh, Police Station And Tehsil- Nawagarh,
    Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

                                                          ---- Petitioner

                                 Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Janjgir, Civil And Revenue
    District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

2. Competent Authority/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, Civil &
    Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)

3. Presiding Officer/Tehsildar Tehsil- Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue
    District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, Civil And
    Revenue District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

5. Devprasad Patel S/o Shri Hatharuram Patel, Panch Ward No.1, Gram
    Panchayat Pendri

6. Mahadev Patel S/o Shri Sitaram Patel, Panch Ward No. 2, Gram
    Panchayat Pendri

7. Smt. Urmila Patel W/o Shri Devprasad Patel, Panch Ward No. 3, Gram
    Panchayat Pendri

8. Jairam Sahu S/o Shri Sahasram Sahu, Panch Ward No. 4, Gram
    Panchayat Pendri

9. Lakhneshwar Das S/o Shri Gyandas, Panch Ward No. 5, Gram Panchayat
    Pendri

10. Smt. Kevra Bai Gond W/o Shri Dujram Gond, Panch Ward No. 6, Gram
    Panchayat Pendri

11. Smt. Narmada Kurre W/o Shri Deviprasad, Panch Ward No. 7, Gram
    Panchayat Pendri

12. Saheblal Patel S/o Shri Narsingh Patel, Panch Ward No. 8, Gram
    Panchayat Pendri
                                       -2-




   13. Smt. Satbhawan Patel W/o Shri Amritlal Patel, Panch Ward No. 9, Gram
        Panchayat Pendri

   14. Babulal Patel S/o Shri Jugutram Patel, Panch Ward No. 10, Gram
        Panchayat Pendri

   15. Smt. Sarita Yadav W/o Shri Chandram Yadav, Panch Ward No. 11, Gram
        Panchayat Pendri

   16. Smt. Hembai Sahu W/o Shri Dhanaram Sahu, Panch Ward No. 12, Gram
        Panchayat Pendri

   17. Smt. Gangabai Sahu W/o Shri Jammulal Sahu, Panch Ward No. 13, Gram
        Panchayat Pendri

   18. Smt. Shantabai Sahu W/o Shri Gopilal Sahu, Panch Ward No. 14, Gram
        Panchayat Pendri

        [respondents No.5 to 18 are R/o Village- Pendri, Post- Nawagarh,

Police Station & Tehsil- Nawagarh, Civil & Revenue District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)]

---- Respondents

For Petitioner - Mr. K.M. Ansari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ramesh Nair, Advocate.

For State - Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate.

S.B.- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board

07-03-2022

Heard

1. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that

the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Pendri,

Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, C.G. At the

instance of respondent No. 4 and 6, a proceeding for no confidence

motion against the petitioner was registered by the respondent No.2

and notice was issued to the concerned. It is submitted that the notices issued are in clear violation of the Rule 3 and 4 of Chhattisgarh

Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad

Panchayat tatha Zila Panchayat ke President tatha Vice President ke

Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (in short "the Rules, 1994"). As

the time duration of the notice was not providing 07 clear days as per

the Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. Further, there was no intimation or

publication of the appointment of Presiding Officer as required under

Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994. Hence, on this basis, the petition has been

filed challenging the proceeding and also challenging the notice issued

for the no confidence motion.

2. Learned State counsel representing respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and

opposes the submissions and submits that there is no error in the

proceeding initiated against the petitioner, therefore, the petition may

be disposed off at the motion stage.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents present on record.

4. Considered on the submissions. In the case of Muku Bai vs State Of

M.P. And Others reported in 1998 (2) MPLJ 661, it was held by the

M.P. High Court that the Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 has to be strictly

complied with. In the event of non-compliance of these Rules, the

entire proceeding of the no confidence motion gets vitiated. The view

taken in the case of Muku Bai (Supra) has been confirmed by the Full

Bench decision of the M.P. High Court in the case of Smt. Bhulin

Dewangan vs State Of M.P. And Others reported in 2000 (4) M.P.H.T.

69. These judgments have been taken into consideration by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gopi Lal Sahu Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & Others in W.P.(C.) No.3723/2019 decided on

18.10.2019.

5. After considering on the material present in the record of this case and

also the submissions made from both the sides, I am of this view that

this petition can be disposed off at the motion stage. The petition is

allowed at the motion stage. The proceeding initiated against the

petitioner registered before respondent No.2 and notice dated

08.01.2022 (Annexure-P/8) issued by respondent No.2 both are

quashed. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of

any other proceeding of no confidence motion to be initiated on any

other notice.

6. With these directions, this petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

Monika                                   (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
                                                      Judge