NAROTTAM VERMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner, by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has impugned the order of Annexure P-l, dated 7th April 2008, whereby the Director Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner under Sec. 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short Act of 1993,) and affirmed the order of the Additional Collector, Durg, dated 23-2-2008, whereby a reference under Sec. 21 of the Act of 1993 against the no confidence motion' dated 12-12-2007 carried out against the petitioner, has been rejected.

(3.) Undisputed facts in the matter are that the petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sodh, Tahsil-Berla, Distt. Durg. The Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Saja fixed 12-12-2007 at 11:00 a.m. as a date and time for consideration of no confidence motion' against the petitioner and the Tahsildar, Berla was appointed as Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. On the given date and time,the petitioner reached at Panchayat Bhawan, Gram Panchayat- Sodh, the venue of meeting, to participate in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. However, the Presiding Officer was not present and the meeting did not commence at the given time i.e. 11:00 a.m. Whereupon, the petitioner submitted an application of Annexure P-3 to the Secretary of the Panchayat, mentioning therein that he has to go in connection with some urgent work and left the venue after obtaining receipt regarding his presence. The Presiding Officer convened the meeting at 1:00 p.m. 20 out of 21 members of the Panchayat, participated in the meeting. 16 members voted in favour of the resolution, whereas, 1 member voted against the motion and 3 votes were declared invalid and accodingly, the Presiding Officer declared the resolution to be passed (Annexure P-4) and sent his report (Annexure P- 5) to the Prescribed Authority. The reference preferred by the petitioner under sub-section (4) of Sec. 21 of the Act of 1993 was rejected by the Additional Collector vide Annexure P-6. His revision against the order of the Additional Collector was further dismissed by the impugned order of Annexure P-l.