FULESHWARI MAHESH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioner has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order dtd. 22/8/2022, passed by Additional Commissioner/respondent No.2 in Revision Case No. 29-A-89/2021- 22, whereby respondent No.2 dismissed the revision filed by petitioners challenging the order dtd. 16/2/2022 allowing the reference filed by respondent No.7 against the proceedings of no confidence motion carried out against her.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent No.7 was elected Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Hardi, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh. Mentioning the reasons, a notice was submitted before the Prescribed Authority signed by 13 Panchas including the petitioners out of 17 panchas requesting for bringing no confidence motion against Sarpanch (respondent No.7). After receipt of notice submitted by elected panchas, the Prescribed Authority had proceeded with the same and issued notice for holding no confidence motion on 20/7/2021 fixing date, time and place of meeting. The meeting was scheduled on 31/7/2021. Presiding Officer was appointed and on the scheduled date, no confidence motion was convened. In the proceedings of no confidence motion, all the elected members participated and 14 votes were casted in favour of motion of no confidence and four votes were casted against no confidence motion. The Presiding Officer has forwarded the proceedings mentioning that no confidence motion is carried out against the Sarpanch i.e. respondent No.7. Based on the proceeding forwarded by Presiding Officer to the Prescribed Authority, order dtd. 2/8/2021 was passed affirming the proceedings of no confidence. The respondent No.7 preferred a reference before the Collector under Sec. 21 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1993'). The Collector upon considering the pleadings made in the reference/application and submissions had allowed the reference and set-aside the order dtd. 2/8/2021 of the Prescribed Authority. The order of the Collector in reference was put to challenge in a revision before the Additional Commissioner/ Respondent No.2, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order against which this petition is filed seeking following relief (s) :-

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the Collector while considering the reference erroneously concluded that in the notice there is no mention of the date of service, it was served through affixing it on the door/wall and it was not served upon respondent No.7 in person, which is erroneous and contrary to the record. Further it is also concluded that notice was not served upon respondent No.7/Sarpanch prior to the time prescribed for service and there is violation of 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'). He contended that the said finding recorded by the Collector in the reference proceedings is also contrary to the record. The notice was dispatched on 20/7/2021 and service of notice is not in dispute. Perusal of the notice annexed along with writ petition would show that copy of service report bears signature of the respondent No.7 and therefore, the ground taken by respondent No.7 in her reference before the Collector that notice was not served in person is per-se wrong. Under the Rules, 1994, there is no requirement of mentioning the date and time of service of notice. Service of notice is governed by the Rule -3 of the Rules, 1994. In support of his contention he referred to the notice placed at Page No.52 of the writ petition. He also contended that after receipt of notice, respondent No.7 participated in the meeting of no confidence motion, she was given opportunity to speak and therefore, there is compliance of all the relevant provisions as per the Rules, 1994. In alternate he submits that even if the notice is served with some delay but before the date of meeting, any prejudice caused by that is not shown by respondent No.7 either before the Collector or in this petition. Hence, the decision of Collector as also the impugned order passed by the revisional authority i.e. Additional Commissioner/respondent No.2 is contrary to the records and the relevant provisions under the Rules, 1994. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Gauri Bai Vs. State of C.G. & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) C.G.L.J. 175 (DB), in case of Gopi Lal Sahu Vs. State of C.G., WPC No.3723 of 2019 decided on 18/10/2019 and in case of Chetan Kurre Vs. State of C.G. & Ors and other connected matters decided on 7/4/2017.