Manorama Yadu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2024 Latest Caselaw 54 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Manorama Yadu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 June, 2024

    Neutral Citation
    2024:CGHC:20781
                                    1

                                                                    AFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WPC No. 3020 of 2024
1. Manorama Yadu W/o Sanjay Yadu Aged About 47 Years
   Sarpanch, R/o Village Pandadah, Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-
   Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
2. Kadar Beg S/o Late Rahmat Beg Aged About 54 Years
   R/o Village Pandadah, Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan
   Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
                                                    ------Petitioners

                                  VERSUS
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And
   Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New
   Raipur, Distt - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (R) Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan
   Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Khairagarh, Distt -
   Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
5. Santosh Kumar Karsh Up Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pandadah,
   Janpad Panchayat Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai,
   Chhattisgarh.
6. Prem Bai Kumbhkar R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
   Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
7. Giriga Bai Kaushik R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
   Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
8. Suresh Rajak R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
   Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
9. Tripti Sen R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
   Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
10. Sushila Sahu, R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
11. Rekha Yadav R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
12. Hem Pushpa Yadu R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
13. Tulsi Bhandekar R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
14. Rukhmani Yadu R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
15. Saraswati Yadu R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
16. Leela Sinha, R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
17. Neeraj Dewangan R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
      Neutral Citation
     2024:CGHC:20781
                                        2

18. Sushma Rajak R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
19. Shiv Kumar Rajak R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
20. Arun Yadav R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
21. Dilip Verma R/o Gram Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat
    Khairagarh, Distt - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh.
                                                          -------Respondents

(cause title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. D.R. Minj, G.A.

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 20/06/2024

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertinent to case of petitioners.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction for respondent authorities to set-aside the notice dated 12.06.2024.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

2. This writ petiton is filed raising grievance against the issuance of notice

by the prescribed authority fixing the date, time and place for holding

meeting of the No Confidence Motion against the Petitioner No. 1

(Sarpanch).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an

elected Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Pandadah, Janpad Panchayat

Khairagarh. The elected Panchas of the Village Panchayat Pandadah

submitted an application/notice before the prescribed authority on

03.06.2024. Pursuant to the notice received, prescribed authority has

fixed date, time and place of the meeting on 21.06.2024 on 11:00 A.M at

Village Panchayat Pandadah. He submits that the fixing of the date of

meeting on 21.06.2024 is beyond 15 days of the notice submitted by the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20781

elected Panchas and therefore, it is in violation of Rule 3 (3) of the

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 (hereinafter

for brevity referred to as " The Rules, 1994") and therefore, the notice is

vitiated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that an identical

issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Smt.

Kumari Diwakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & 17 Ors. in WPC No.

3032/2022 in which, this Court has held that the meeting fixed for holding

the No Confidence Motion beyond 15 days of the date of notice to be in

contravention of the provision under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994. He

also pointed out that the case traveled up to the Division Bench of this

Court and the order passed in the writ petition was not interferred with.

The case of the petitioner is covered with the aforementioned orders

passed by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State opposes

this submission and would submit that the petitioner has not specifically

pleased as to what prejudice is caused, if the meeting is fixed beyond 15

days from the date of submission of the application/notice by the elected

Panchas for bringing No Confidence Motion against the Petitioner No. 1

(Sarpanch).

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

documents placed on record.

7. Perusal of the application dated 03.06.2024 (Annexure P/2) would show

that it is a notice/application submitted by the 18 elected Panchas of

Village Panchayat Pandadah before the prescribed authority i.e. the

Respondent No. 3 for bringing No Confidence Motion against the

Petitioner No. 1 (Sarpanch) for the reasons mentioned therein. The

notice dated 03.06.2024 was issued/dispatched by the Respondent No. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20781

3 mentioning and fixing the date, time and place for holding the No

Confidence Motion on 12.06.2024. The date fixed for holding the meeting

is on 21.06.2024.

8. To appreciate the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, I find it

appropriate to extract the relevant provisions under Rule 3 (3) of the

Rules, 1994 which reads as under:

3 (3) On receiving the notice under Sub-Rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21 (3), 28 (3) and 35 (3), as the case may be.

On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting."

9. Perusal of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994 would show that the action to be

taken by the prescribed authority after receiving notice under sub-rule 1

of Rule 3, the language used under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994 would

show that it is in two parts. First, the notice is to be acted upon by fixing

the meeting for holding the No Confidence Motion to be within 15 days

and second part is for dispatching the notice of the date fixed for

meeting, 07 days before the meeting.

10. The sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 came up for consideration

before the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the

case of Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors,

(2000) 4 MPHT 69 and the Honb'le High Court of Madhya Pradesh has

held that though in Rule 3 (3), the word "shall" has been used, it cannot

be deemed to be a mandatory provision, but it will have its effect as a Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20781

directory and it can be interdicted only when the petitioner or the affected

party to perform its case by showing that some prejudice has been

caused to him or her by not following the rules as provided under Rule 3

(3) of the Rules, 1994.

11. Before the Division Bench of this Court also, similar issue came up for

consideration of fixing meeting beyond 15 days of the notice in case of

Rajkumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in Writ Appeal No.

545/2019 and the Division Bench, considering the decisions in case of

Bhulin Dewangan (supra), Dhumadandhin (Smt.) Vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (1997) 1 Vidhi Bhaskar 49, Muku Bai Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, 1998 (2) MPLJ 661 has upheld the

order passed in the writ petition wherein, the writ petition was allowed

set-aside the order of Collector in reference with an observation that the

petitioner has failed to point out that what prejudice has been caused to

him.

12. In the case at hand also, petitioner has not specifically pleaded in so

many words as to what prejudice is caused to her in fixing the meeting

beyond the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice under

sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, but the said provision from its language prima

facie is for protecting the interest of the Panchas' who submits the

notice/application before the prescribed authority for brining No

Confidence Motion against elected Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch,

Panchayat or President or Vice-President of Janpad or Zila Panchayat.

The very provision is for the prescribed authority to act on the notice and

not to sit over it arbitrarily. One of the pleadings made is that there is

family function, however, the function, if any, is not specifically pleaded.

13. The decision in case of Smt. Kumari Diwakar (supra) relied upon by

counsel for petitioner was decided on 15.07.2022. It appears that none of

the parties brought to the notice of the Court, judgment of the Division Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20781

Bench of this Court in the case of Rajkumar Sahu (supra) decided on

09.12.2019.

14. Considering the facts of the case as also, the grounds raised in the writ

petition and further, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Raj Kumar Sahu (supra), I do not find any merit in this writ

petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed at the motion stage itself.

15. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petiton is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey