Uttama Rao vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3338 Chatt

                                           1


                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     Order Sheet
                               WPC No. 2216 of 2022


   Uttama Rao W/o Lakhan Lal, Aged About 37 Years, Posted at Officiating Sarpanch,
   Gram Panchayat Mohatarai, Janpad Panchayat -Bilha, P.S. Ratanpur, District :
   Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                             ---- Petitioner
                                        Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare
   Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh.
2. The Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Collector Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. Sub Divisional Officer Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6. Smt. Rajeshwari Bai Sahu W/o Kaushal Sahu R/o Gram Panchayat Mohatarai, P.S.
   Ratanpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                         ---- Respondents

09.05.2022 Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Aditya Tiwari, PL for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Shri Devesh G Kela, Advocate on behalf of Shri Ramesh Naik,

Advocate for respondent No.6/Caveator.

Issue notice to the respondents.

Shri Aditya Tiwari & Shri Devesh G Kela accept notice behalf of

respective respondents. They pray for two weeks' time to file reply to writ

petition.

On payment of process fee, issue notice to respondent No.5. PF as per

rules. Notice be made returnable within three weeks.

Heard on IA No.02/2022 application for grant of exemption from filing

certified copy of impugned order.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the petitioner with

others submitted an application for bringing 'no confidence motion against

private-respondent', but they have not been arrayed as respondent in revision

proceeding. Hence, certified copy of impugned order has not been supplied

to the petitioner.

In view of above submission, IA No.02/2022 is allowed. Petitioner is

exempted from filing certified copy of impugned order till further orders.

Also heard on IA No.1/2022, application for grant of interim relief.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that if any proceeding of 'no

confidence motion' is initiated against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch and motion

is passed with majority, the Prescribed Authority informed about passing of

motion against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, the office of

Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch will be deemed to be vacated from the date of

passing of motion against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch. Private-respondent

challenging her removal pursuant to motion passed against her, preferred

reference under Section 21(4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,

1993 (for short, 'the Act of 1993') which came to be dismissed on 11.04.2022

as barred by limitation. Thereafter, she preferred revision before respondent

No.2/Additional Commissioner, who by impugned order dated 25.04.2022,

stayed effect and operation of order dated 11.04.2022 as well as 'no

confidence motion' proceeding dated 28.01.2022, which is not permissible in

law. In support of his contention, he places his reliance upon the judgment of

this Court passed on 07.04.2017 in WPS No.1390/2016.

Heard counsel for parties and perused record of writ petition.

Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, documents placed

on record, submission of counsel for petitioner that proceeding of 'no

confidence motion' passed against private respondent is put to challenge in a

reference under Section 21(4) of the Act of 1993 which came to be dismissed

and said order was under challenge in revision, order dated 07.04.2017

passed in WPS No.1390/2016 wherein it is held that 'moment motion of no

confidence is carried against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be,

he ceased to hold the office forthwith and nothing remains for the Collector to

stay the effect and operation of carrying of no confidence motion', it is

directed that effect and operation of impugned order dated 25.04.2022

passed by respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner as Annexure P-1 shall

remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

List the matter in week commencing 20.06.2022.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Jamal/-