Chattisgarh High Court
Khilanand Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 497 of 2022
1. Khilanand Sahu S/o Late Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years
Councilor, Ward No. 9, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Tahsil Gurur,
District - Balod (C.G.)
2. Pramod Kumar Sonwani S/o Late Shri Mangul Ram Aged About 54
Years Vice President, Ward No. 14, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Tahsil
Gurur, District - Balod (C.G.)
3. Lalita Jamdar W/o Shri Purshottam Jamdar Aged About 42 Years
Councilor, Ward No. 10, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Tahsil Gurur,
District - Balod (C.G.)
4. Mukesh Sahu S/o Shri Shambu Ram Sahu Aged About 36 Years
Councilor, Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Tahsil Gurur,
District - Balod (C.G.)
5. Mahima @ Renu Sahu W/o Shri Bhupendra Sahu Aged About 32
Years Councilor, Ward No. 3, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Tahsil Gurur,
District - Balod (C.G.)
6. Kunti Bai @ Indrawati Sinha W/o Shri Rukham Sinha Aged About
42 Years Councilor, Ward No. 4, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Tahsil
Gurur, District - Balod (C.G.)
7. Shobhit Ram Ojha S/o Shri Jhumuk Lal Ojha Aged About 50 Years
Councilor, Ward No. 8, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Tahsil Gurur,
District - Balod (C.G.)
8. Bhupesh Kumar Lohle S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Lohle Aged About 37
Years Councilor, Ward No. 6, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Tahsil Gurur,
District - Balod (C.G.)
9. Jitendra Kumar Dhimar S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Dhimar Aged About
46 Years Councilor Ward No. 15, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Tahsil
Gurur, District - Balod (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Department of Urban
and Rural Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector, Balod District - Balod (C.G.)
2
3. Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, District
- Balod (C.G.)
4. Smt. Tikeshwari Sahu, W/o Domar Singh Kuwar, aged about 39
years, President, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Tahsil Gurur, District -
Balod (C.G.), R/o Ward No. 03, Mahatma Gandhi Ward Gurur,
District - Balod (C.G.)
5. Chintaram Sahu Councillor, Ward No, 2, Nagar Panchayat Gurur,
Tahsil Gurur, District - Balod (C.G.)
6. Anusuiya Dhruv Councilor, Ward No. 5, Nagar Panchayat Gurur,
Tahsil Gurur, District - Balod (C.G.)
7. Chandralata Sahu Councilor, Ward No. 7, Nagar Panchayat Gurur,
Tahsil Gurur, District - Balod (C.G.)
8. Jiteshwari Nishad Councilor, Ward No. 2, Nagar Panchayat Gurur,
Tahsil Gurur, District - Balod (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Additional
Advocate General.
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
29.09.2022
Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also
heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned
senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel,
appearing for respondent No. 4/writ petitioner.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 08.03.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 1192 of 2022.
3. The respondent No. 4/writ petitioner is the elected President of
Nagar Panchayat, Gurur. There are 14 councillors, apart from the
President.
4. On 09.02.2022, 12 councillors filed an application for initiating a 'no
confidence motion' against the writ petitioner.
5. Pursuant thereto, the Collector, Balod by an order dated 25.02.2022
convened a meeting for discussing 'no confidence motion' on 11.03.2022.
The said order was put to challenge by filing writ petition, numbered as
Writ Petition (C) No. 1192 of 2022.
6. The learned Single Judge, on 08.03.2022, passed the following
order:
"Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sourabh
Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on petition and also on application for grant of
interim relief.
Learned State counsel representing respondent No. 1
and 2 is praying for time to file reply.
Notice be also issued to all the remaining respondents.
Process fee be paid within a period of 03 days.
List this case after four weeks.
In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the
impugned order dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure-P/1) shall
remain stayed until the next date of hearing."
7. It is against the said interim order granted, this appeal is filed.
8. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, who are 9
out of the 12 councillors, who had requisitioned for convening a meeting
for considering 'no confidence motion', has submitted that contention
raised in the writ petition has been rejected by judgment of this Court
dated 10.08.2022 in Writ Appeal No. 284 of 2022 (Satya Gupta v. State
of Chhattisgarh & Others), and therefore, the writ petition itself is liable
to be dismissed. He submits that it is contended in the writ petition that
the allegations made by the councillors having not been proved in a
purported enquiry conducted by the Collector, Balod through Chief
Municipal Officer, meeting ought not to have been convened by the
Collector.
9. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned senior counsel, appearing for
respondent No. 4/writ petitioner submits that this appeal is not
maintainable, as the appeal is preferred against an interim order by which
no rights of the parties have been finally determined.
10. Mr. Sharma submits that though the learned Single Judge had
directed the matter to be listed after four weeks, even after more than six
months, the writ petition is not listed, as a result of which the appellants
have been put to grave prejudice.
11. Considering the matter in its entirety, we deem it appropriate to
direct the Registry to list the case before the appropriate Single Bench
having roster on 12.10.2022 immediately after the fresh matters for
consideration.
12. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal stands
disposed of without notice to respondents No. 3 and 5 to 8 as we have
not expressed any opinion on merits and as such no prejudice would be
caused to them.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
