URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Sarpanch of village Panchayat Dhondha, Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G). An application for initiating proceeding for holding the meeting of Panchayat for consideration of motion of no confidence was moved by the Panchas before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the said Officer issued notice to the Panchayas fixing date and place of the meeting on 04.02.2012. The Tahsildar Pratappur was appointed as Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting. The meeting of the Panchayat took place on 11.02.2012. Out of 14 members of the Panchayat present and voting, 11 voted in favour of the motion and 3 voted against the motion that is in favour of the petitioner. Since the motion was voted and carried in accordance with law, the Presiding Officer declared that the motion is carried.

(2.) REFERENCE filed by the petitioner u/s 21(4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam has been rejected by the Collector, Surajpur, by the impugned order. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Presiding Officer has not communicated the decision on the motion of no confidence to the concerned Collector as required in Rule 8 of The Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up Sarpanch, Janpad panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Rules, 1994 (for short 'Avishwas Prastav Rules, 1994') and thus the entire proceeding is vitiated. According to him, the said provision is mandatory and non-compliance thereof adversely affects and vitiates the entire proceeding.

(3.) IN the matter of Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2011) 9 SCC 354, Hon'ble the Supreme Court after applying its earlier judgment in case of May George V. Tahsildar (2010) 13 SCC 98 has laid down the precepts for determining whether a provision is mandatory or directory Para 119 is reproduced hereunder: