RAMHAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India petitioner calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 17.8.2000 passed by respondent no. 3, Sub Divisional Officer/Prescribed Officer under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam by which no confidence motion against the petitioner was rescheduled for 27.08.2001. The petitioner further states that though a revision against the aforesaid order was filed before the Collector, Korba but the same having not been considered in time, has become infructuous. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pahadgaon. On a no confidence motion moved by few Panchas, the Prescribed Authority, respondent no. 3 directed the Additional Tehsildar, Karatala, to convene a meeting of Panchas on 8.8.2001 to consider the no confidence motion. However, on the said date, according to the petitioner, for want of quorum the no confidence motion could not be taken up and accordingly that Additional Tehsildar submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Officer stating that because of the tense law and order situation prevailing in the village at the relevant time the no confidence motion could not be taken up therefore a request was made for fixing another date for casting votes on the no confidence motion against the petitioner. On receipt of the aforesaid report from the Additional Tehsildar, respondent no.3 by the impugned order dt. 17.8.2001 fixed 27.08.2001 as the next date for considering the no confidence motion against the petitioner.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.3 rescheduling the voting on no confidence motion against the petitioner and fixing another date as 27.8.2001 for the purpose, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Collector, respondent no.2 on 25.8.2001. However, the Collector did not pass any order on the revision before 27.8.2001 and as such the voting on no confidence motion took place on the date rescheduled as 27.8.2000 in which out of 10 members present 9 have voted in favour of the no confidence motion.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order adjourning the meeting fixed for no confidence motion is contrary to the provisions of section 21 (3) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and also in violation of the principles of natural justice and as such the same is liable to be quashed.