AGHNURAM NISHAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally. The petitioners by the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have impugned the order of Annexure P-6 dated 14-12-2007 passed by Upper Collector, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur whereby the reference under Section 21(4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity 'the Act of 1993') filed by the respondent No. 6, Sarpanch, has been allowed and the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' dated 27-8-2007 passed in the meeting of Gram Panchayat Bhawanipur, has been set aside.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the respondent No. 6 is elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhawanipur. THE 'No Confidence Motion' was submitted against her by twelve members of the Panchayat before the Prescribed Authority, i.e., Sub-Divisional Officer, Baloda Bazar, respondent No. 4 herein, on 6-8-2007. THE matter was posted on 13th August, 2007 and on that date it was directed to convene a meeting of the members of the Panchayat on 27th August, 2007. Naib Tehsildar, Palari, respondent No. 5 herein, was appointed as Presiding Officer for the above meeting to consider the 'No Confidence Motion' against the respondent No. 6. THE meeting was convened on 27-8-2007, in which all the 16 members of Gram Panchayat Bhawanipur including the respondent No. 6 Sarpanch participated and the Presiding Officer declared that the motion of No Confidence is carried out with the majority of 12 members in favour and four against out of the total 16 members of the Panchayat. A reference was filed by the respondent No. 6 Sarpanch against the above resolution passed against her on 27-8-2007 before the Upper Collector, respondent No. 3 herein, on 25-9-2007. Initially, the reference was dismissed as barred by time, however, the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 6 was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Upper Collector/respondent No. 3 for reconsideration of the reference after notice to all the concerned. Accordingly, the matter was again heard by the Upper Collector/respondent No. 3, who, by the impugned order, set aside the 'No Confidence Motion' with an observation that compliance of Rule 3 (3) of the Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (for convenience 'the Rules, 1994') is mandatory and in the instant case, the notice of 'No Confidence Motion' was given on 6th August, 2007 whereas the meeting was convened on 27th August, 2008, i.e., beyond the period of 15 days and it was in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri P.P. Sahu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 Sarpanch, vehemently argued that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 is mandatory. Even otherwise, from perusal of the documents annexed with the petition it would be evident that the notices were dispatched on 20th August, 2007 for service on the members of the Gram Panchayat Bhawanipur for their presence in the meeting to be held on 27th August, 2007 and thus, there is a non-compliance of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, which mandates that the notices are required to be dispatched before 7 clear days of the meeting. It was further argued that though the learned Upper Collector/respondent No. 3 has not assigned any reason as to what prejudice was caused to the respondent No. 6 Sarpanch due to non-compliance of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, however, the fact that only five members of the Panchayat have instituted this petition out of 12 members, who voted in favour of the 'No Confidence Motion', goes to show that all the members were not interested in the 'No Confidence Motion' and if one member had voted against the 'No Confidence Motion' in addition to four, it would have been defeated.