Majhno Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6804 Chatt

                                1

                                                              NAFR
       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      WPC No. 4724 of 2022

  Majhno Bai W/o Bahadur Shekhar, Aged About 31 Years, Sarpanch
  Gram Panchayat Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur,
  Chhattisgarh
                                                       ---- Petitioner

                             Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagicha,
   District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

2. Poonam Sharma, Panch Of Ward No. 2, R/o Gram Panchayat,
   Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

3. Dinesh Yadav, Up Sarpanch, Ward No. 20, R/o Gram Panchayat,
   Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

4. Roopson Ram, Panch, Ward No. 10, R/o Gram Panchayat, Ghoghar,
   Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

5. Krishna Chouhan, Panch, Ward No. 1, R/o Gram Panchayat,
   Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

6. Jagdish Ram, Panch, Ward No. 4, R/o Gram Panchayat, Ghoghar,
   Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

7. Agantu Ram, Panch, Ward No. 3, R/o Gram Panchayat, Ghoghar,
   Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

8. Premsai Ram, Panch , Ward No. 5, R/o Gram Panchayat, Ghoghar,
   Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

9. Banaye Ram, Panch, Ward No. 7, R/o Gram Panchayat, Ghoghar,
   Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

10.      Manzil Panch, Ward No. 8, R/o Gram Panchayat, Ghoghar,
   Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

11.      Ruji Tigga, Panch, Ward No. 9, R/o Gram Panchayat, Ghoghar,
   Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

12.    Abha Ekka, Panch, Ward No. 12, R/o Gram Panchayat,
   Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

13.    Prabha Toppo, Panch, Ward No. 14, R/o Gram Panchayat,
   Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

14.    Fulkeriya Toppo, Panch, Ward No. 15, R/o Gram Panchayat,
   Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
                                         2

   15.    Shakuntala, Panch, Ward No. 6, R/o Gram Panchayat,
      Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

   16.    Shalina Khalkho, Panch, Ward No. 17, R/o Gram Panchayat,
      Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

   17.    Amrita Pradhan, Panch, Ward No. 13, R/o Gram Panchayat,
      Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

   18.    Nilmani Toppo, Panch, Ward No. 16, R/o Gram Panchayat,
      Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

   19.    Laxmi Priya, Panch, Ward No. 19, R/o Gram Panchayat,
      Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

   20.    Anand Sidar, Panch, Ward No. 18, R/o Gram Panchayat,
      Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

   21.    Dropati Yadav, Panch, Ward No. 11, R/o Gram Panchayat,
      Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                ---- Respondents

For Petitioner           :      Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
For State                :      Mr. P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer


                     Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                             Judgment On Board
15.11.2022

   1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the       notice Annexure

P-1 dated 03.11.2022 and also Annexure P-2 again dated

03.11.2022. Annexure P-1 is the proceedings of the Sub Divisional

Officer at the behest of the private respondents i.e. the Panches of

the said Gram Panchayat requesting for No Confidence Motion to be

intiated against the petitioner herein who is the elected Sarpanch of

Gram Panchayat Ghoghar, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur.

Annexure P-2 is the order of the SDO fixing the date for No

Confidence Motion on 15th November, 2022 at 11 a.m.

2. The challenge primarily is on the ground that the requirement of law

under Rule-3 (1) of the CG Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke

Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch Ke Virudh Aviswas Prastava) Niyam

1994 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1994") has not been

adhered to and therefore the entire proceeding gets Vitiated. The

challenge also is on the ground that the authority concerned i.e. the

SDO has not made any sort of enquiry before issuance of Annexure

P-2 which again is the requirement under Rule-3 of the Rules of 1994.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent no.1 ought

to have for his subjective satisfaction enquired about the authenticity

of the person who had appeared before him and also ought to have

enquired whether there was any No Confidence Motion initiated in the

past within a period of one year or not. Only after such minimum

enquiry could the respondent no.1 have issued Annexure P-2 fixing

the no confidence motion on 15th of November, 2022.

4. The matter came up for hearing on 14th of this month. This Court had

directed the State counsel to seek instruction. The State counsel on

instruction makes a submission that all the Panches i.e. the private

respondents had appeared personally before the SDO along with a

representation duly signed seeking for No Confidence Motion to be

initiated against the petitioner for the alleged misdeeds and the non-

performance on the part of petitioner. It was after due verification of

facts that the SDO had issued Annexure P-2 fixing the date of No

Confidence Motion on 15th November, 2022.

5. Learned State counsel further submits that since it was the subjective

satisfaction of respondent no.1, the manner of subjective satisfaction

or the nature of query or enquiry conducted by the respondent no.1

was not to be spelt out in the proceedings or the order sheets. If the

respondent no.1 was personally satisfied, he had all the authorities to

proceed in accordance with law as is prescribed under Rule-3 of the

Rules 1994.

6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal

of records, there is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was

served with a notice of No Confidence Motion on 03.11.2022. As per

the notice, no confidence Motion is to be held on 15.11.2022. The

meeting of No Confidence Motion was supposed to be called by the

SDO under the rules itself within a period of 15 days from the date of

receipt of notice. The date fixed for No Confidence Motion is well

within 15 days period.

7. As far as the subjective satisfaction is concerned, since it is a

subjective satisfaction for the respondent no.1 which has not been

clearly enumerated in Rule-3, it has to be presumed that Annexure P-

2 has been issued only after the subjective satisfaction of the

respondent no.1.

8. What further is required to be considered is the fact that no prejudice

as such has been caused to the right of the petitioner on the issuance

of Annexure P-1 or for that matter Annexure P-2. It is strictly in

accordance with the rules and the petitioner in terms of the provisions

of Rule-3 would be entitled for a personal hearing in No Confidence

Motion to be held on 15.11.2022. The petitioner would get a chance

of speaking to all the panches in the meeting in respect of her

performance and conduct to justify her stand and only then the

respondent no.1 would proceed further. Only because the subjective

satisfaction of respondent no.1 i.e. the SDO having not been reflected

in the order or the SDO getting satisfied from the averments made by

the Panches who had moved the notice to him and the SDO having

proceeded to fix the date of No Confidence Motion within 15 days

time on the same day on receipt of notice by itself would not be a

ground to presume that the same has been done with some

extraneous consideration or with certain malafied intention.

9. In a democratic set up, it is the view of the majority which should

prevail. From the pain reading of Annexure P-1 it appears that

majority of the Panches have signed the notice given to respondent

no.1. Now it is for the petitioner to put up his or her defence before

the Gram Panchayat on the date when the No Confidence Motion is

presented to prove her innocence and to justify the action that has

been taken by her and try to defeat the No Confidence Motion. At this

stage it would not be proper for this Court in exercise of its power

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the

notice so issued by the respondent no.1.

10. Thus, reserving the right of petitioner to appear before the

Gram Panchayat on the fix date and time, the writ petition at this

juncture stands rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai