PILARAM DEEWAN Vs. STATE OF C.G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 18.9.2006 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund in Revenue Case No. 34/A-89/2005-06, wherein and where under, it was held that 'No-Confidence Motion', placed in the Gram Panchayat meeting held on 30.8.2006 against the Respondent No. 5 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dongargaon, Block Bagbahra, Tahsil and District Mahasamund was not carried out, in accordance with law. Thus, the resolution to carry out 'No-Confidence Motion' was declared invalid.

(2.) THE indisputable facts in nutshell are that the Petitioners are elected Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Dongargaon, Tahsil, Bagbahra, District, Mahasamund (hereinafter referred to as 'Gram Panchayat'). THE Respondent No. 5 was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. THE total number of Panchas, excluding the Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat are 19 Panchas. THE notices to hold the meeting for carrying out No Confidence Motion was despatched on 22.8.2006 (Annexure P-1 to P-19). In the notice, it was clearly stated that Shri G.S. Sharma, Naib Tahsildar, Bagbahra would be appointed as Presiding Officer. Notice was duly received by all the Panchas, including Sarpanch well in time.

(3.) BEING aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the 'No Confidence Motion', the Respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal under Section 21(4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') before the Collector, Mahasamund. The Collector, Mahasamund after hearing the parties held that it is not clear as to whether notice was served or not. The meeting was not held under the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the Madhya Pradesh 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 'the Niyam, 1994'). Accordingly, the Collector declared the meeting to consider the 'No Confidence Motion' against the Respondent No. 5 as invalid not being in accordance with law.