PEELI BAI BHAINA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the elected Panchas of Village Panchayat- Bhadripali, Janpad Panchayat- Sakti. They have submitted an application for bringing "No Confidence Motion" against respondent No.5 (Sarpanch) of Village Panchayat- Bhadripali, Janpad Panchayat Sakti. Based on the application/notice submitted before the Prescribed Authority, notice was issued in terms of Rule 3 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), Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1994") fixing the date, time and place of the meeting. On the date fixed, meeting was convened and all 11 elected Panchas including the Sarpanch participated in the proceedings of "No confidence Motion". After discussion, the polling was done and the Presiding Officer recorded in the proceeding that out of 11, 8 votes casted in favour of "Motion of No Confidence", 2 votes against the Motion and 1 was declared Invalid. The 1 vote which was declared as Invalid in fact was a valid vote wherein the tick mark was made by one of the Panchas which was little small and, therefore, it ought to have been counted in favour of "Motion of No Confidence". Had the said 1 vote declared Invalid is counted in favour of Motion, the "Motion of No Confidence" could have been carried out with the majority. He submits that though other grounds are also taken in the writ petition, however, he is not pressing the said grounds as the issue inviolved herein has been considered and decided in the decision passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Deshraj Singh Vs Gram Panchayat and Ors. [1999 (1) MPLJ 621]. He further places reliance upon in the decision of Sharda Bai Khatik Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. [1997 (2) MPLJ 291].

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that there is no error in convening the proceeding by the Prescribed Authority and counting of votes. Presiding Officer has very correctly recorded that 8 votes have been casted in favour of "Motion of No Confidence", 2 against the Motion and 1 has been declared to be Invalid. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the tick mark which is small in size has not been considered, is without any basis. No material is placed in this regard. He also submits that as per observation of this Court, the ballot-paper in sealed cover is called for perusal of Court.