Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Uma Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 October, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Writ Petition (C). No.4412 of 2022
Smt. Uma Thakur Versus State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
19/10/2022 Mr.R.S.Patel, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.P.Acharya, P.L. for the State/Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Heard on admission.
The matter appears to be arguable, admitted for hearing.
The State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent
Nos.1 to 5, hence issuance of notice to these Respondents stands
dispensed with.
Let notice be issued to Respondent Nos.6 to 26 on payment of
process fee as per rules.
Also heard on IA No.01/2022 for grant of interim relief.
Issue notice on IA No.01/2022 as well.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that
notice of No Confidence Motion was given by the Panchas on
04.08.2022 (Annexure P-2), as contained in Sub Rule 3 of Rule 3
of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat(Gram Panchayat Sarpanch Tatha
Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke
President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Ke Prastav)
Niyam, 1994, meeting for discussing of No Confidence Motion has
to be convened within 15 days thereof that is on or before
19.08.2022. Initially the meeting was scheduled to be convened on
22.08.2022 which is not accordance with the above mentioned Rule.
It is further submitted that on 22.08.2022 due to the strike, the
meeting was not convened. Thereafter, a fresh notice for
discussing of No Confidence Motion was again issued on
10.10.2022 vide Annexure P-1, according to which meeting should
be convened on 20.10.2022 which is also not permissible. The
Counsel further submits that meanwhile, the Panchas made
representation vide Annexure P-7 before Respondent No.4,
SDO(Revenue) for withdrawal of their earlier notice of No Confidence
Motion against the Petitioner, therefore also, impugned notice
issued by Respondent No.4, SDO (Revenue) is not sustainable and
bad in law. Therefore, it is prayed that effect and operation of
impugned notice Annexure P-1 may be stayed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the
argument advanced by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is
submitted by the Counsel that on 22.08.2022, as there was a
strike , therefore, on that date the meeting was not convened.
Accordingly, a fresh notice for convening the meeting vide Annexure
P-1 has been issued. Relying upon the judgments passed by
Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.1720/2019 (Ramdayal
Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.) & WPC No.2178/2017
(Gore Lal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.), it is
submitted by the Counsel that meeting of No Confidence Motion can
also be adjourned. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
further considering the submissions made by leaned Counsel
appearing for the parties, particularly considering the fact that date
of the first meeting for conveying the discussion for No Confidence
Motion was fixed after 15 days from the receipt of notice of No
Confidence Motion and further considering the fact that inspite of
submission of withdrawal application for No Confidence Motion, the
impugned notice has been issued by Respondent No.4, SDO
(Revenue), in view of the above, it is ordered that effect and
operation of impugned notice dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure P-1)
shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
List the matter after four weeks.
Certified copy today.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Shubham
