KAMTA PRASAD FEKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Nishikant Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 / State and Mr. Akash Kedia, learned counsel for respondent No.7.

(2.) The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dtd. 21/3/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.2824 of 2022 (Kamta Prasad Fekar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dtd. 21/6/2022 passed by respondent No.1 partly allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent No.7.

(3.) Undisputed facts are that the respondent No.7 was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hirmi. The respondents No.8 to 26 were other elected Panchas of the same Gram Panchayat all of whom were elected from Panchayat Election held on 4/2/2020. On 26/2/2021, some of the Panchas of the Gram Panchayat Hirmi moved a representation before the respondent No.4 calling for -No Confidence Motion- to be convened against the respondent No.7-Sarpanch. The respondent No.4 took cognizance on the said representation of the Panchas and proceeded in accordance with provisions of Sec. 21(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short, the Adhiniyam) and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. The Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (in short, the Rules, 1994). The Prescribed Authority thereafter fixed the date for -No Confidence Motion- to be held on 15/3/2021. In the course, the respondent No.4 had appointed the Naib Tehsildar, Suhela to act as a Presiding Officer and ordered for issuance of notices to all the parties concerned in this regard. On 15/3/2021 as per Schedule the meeting for No Confidence Motion was held and in the voting that took place, 15 votes were in favour of No Confidence and 5 votes were against the motion. Thus, the No Confidence Motion was passed by 3/4th of the majority.