ROOPNARAYAN KHUNTE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seminal issue involved in this petition is --

(2.) Without adverting to unnecessary details, suffice it would be to mention that a motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner under Sec. 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, 1993') read with the Rules as contained in 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 (for short 'the Rules, 1994') and accordingly a meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened on 9/3/2016 for consideration. The proceedings of the said meeting records that Smt. Malati Mahant, Panch, was allowed to table and speak for the motion of no confidence to which she replied that the petitioner attends the meeting of Panchayat after consuming liquor and does not accede to the suggestions given by the office bearers of the Panchayat.

(3.) The Presiding Officer, thereafter, records that the members of the Panchayat present in the meeting were informed about the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Act, 1993 and the method of voting prescribed under the Rules. The members, thereafter, casted their vote. The petitioner moved away from the place of meeting on the pretext of attending the nature's call and did not return for about 15 minutes, therefore, the counting was done in his absence wherein it was found that 10 votes polled in favour of motion and 2 votes against it. The petitioner came back at the place of meeting immediately after the counting. The Presiding Officer declared that the no confidence motion has been passed by the required majority.