SATYA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dtd. 17/5/2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Collector and Designated Officer, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) for convening a special meeting with regard to no confidence motion against the petitioner, who is the President of Nagar Panchayat, Rahod, in accordance with Sec. 43-A(2)(ii) of the CG Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short "the Act, 1961").

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and the same has been issued by the Collector, Janjgir-Champa (CG) without application of mind and in a mechanical manner. Since certain Elected Councillors of the Nagar Panchayat, Rahod have submitted information about the no confidence motion against the petitioner, the impugned notice dtd. 17/5/2022 convening the meeting on 30/5/2022, was issued. The petitioner is an elected President of Nagar Panchayat, Rahod. Some other elected Councillors were having ill-will against the petitioner, therefore, they have moved such no confidence motion before respondent No.2 on fake charges and thereby, tried to kill the spirit of the Constitution of India in the pretext of not fulfilling their illegal demands. The copy of the information given to the Collector by the Elected Councillors is annexed with the petition as Annexure P/2. The petitioner has also filed an application for cancellation of no confidence motion and explaining her situation, sought dismissal of the motion before the Collector. Learned counsel further submits that the Councillor of Ward No.1 namely Dayashankar Gond has issued a letter in favour of the petitioner stating that his signature was obtained in a deceitful manner. The petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before taking any action, therefore, learned counsel prays to quash the impugned notice or grant interim relief by staying the effect and operation of the impugned notice till pendency of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the list of allegations or charges have not been communicated to the petitioner as contained in Annexure P/2 and the Collector has also failed to make any enquiry on such allegations, therefore, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has also explained the circumstances, under which, the motion has been passed against her. He also submits that till date, no FIR has been registered against the petitioner and there is no charge of corruption against her and the impugned notice is mainly issued on account of her misbehaviour, therefore, on such score, an enquiry is needed, but the Collector has failed to record any satisfaction about the misbehaviour of the petitioner before issuing the impugned notice. He further contended that in the information given to the Collector, one of the members has totally denied his signature and stated that his signature has been obtained in a fraudulent manner. He also submits that in an identical case also i.e. WA No.272 of 2022 (Smt. Anjana Rajesh Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), wherein, interim relief was granted vide order dtd. 24/5/2022 by the Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court, the list of allegations were not supplied along with the notice. Hence, the other arguments were thrown away and the interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner therein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, (2011) 10 SCC 608, wherein, in para 34, it has been held that the basic postulate of judicial discipline is that a Single Bench is bound by the judgment of the Division Bench. Therefore, considering all these aspects, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to stay the effect and operation of the impugned notice till the final adjudication of the case.