Dashrath Khute vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Sunil Kumar Sinha. J.

Heard on admission. Mr. Ragvendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baloudi, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.). His election has been called in question by filing an election petition by respondent No. 4 and the matter is subjudice before the concerned Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the motion of no confidence has been moved against the petitioner and notices have been issued for meeting on 14 of November, 2011. His submission is that during the pendency of the election petition, a no confidence motion cannot be entertained.

The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived. Adjudication of the election petition and holding a meeting for consideration of a no confidence motion, both operate in two different fields. There is no legal impediment in entertaining the no confidence motion even during the pendency of the election petition Neither Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, nor Chhattisgarh (Gram Panchayat ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam 1994, contain any such provision which may prohibit the proceeding of a no confidence motion during the pendency of an election petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any such provision in this regard. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substance in the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. No order as to cost.