Dharamchand Kunjam vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2whereby the petitioner, working as Sarpanch of GramPanchayat, Kumhankhar, District North Bastar, Kanker, hasbeen removed from his post under the provisions of section 21(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, `the Adhiniyam, 1993'').

Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kumhankhar, Uttar Bastar Kanker. An application was made by the Panchas under the provisions of section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, for initiation of no-confidence motion against the petitioner, pursuant to which, the Tahsildar was appointed as Presiding Officer. Thereafter, resolution was passed on 11.07.2011 for removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch.. Pursuant to the said resolution, the impugned order dated 13.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) was passed without affording the petitioner, an opportunity to put forward his case.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

Section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 provides that if the Sarpanch desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, he shall within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as possible, within thirty days from the date on which it was received by him and his decision shall be final. In the case on hand, the order u/s 21(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was passed on 13.07.2011 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner, without taking recourse to provisions of section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No exceptional circumstances has either been pointed out nor has been pleaded in the petition so asto invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this ground alone, the petition fails as the petitioner has failed to avail the alternative statutory remedy available to him under the provisions of law. However, on merit, there is no case as the no-confidence motion was carried out against the petitioner by thumping majority as 19 members voted in favour of no-confidence motion, one against the no-confidence motion, and one vote was declared as invalid.

Election is the basic pillar of the democratic set up. A candidate who participates in the election process gets elected by majority of votes polled in his favour. In a similar way, when a no-confidence motion is carried against an elected candidate, and the motion is carried out by a clear majority, the same cannot be held as illegal merely on the ground of some technical defects and the allegations made by the petitioner, which are not supported by any documentary evidence, or otherwise. The no-confidence motion has been passed by a clear majority in a proper resolution held in presence of the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no finding has been recorded. It is not evident from any document which has been annexed with the writ petition that the finding has not been recorded. However, it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner himself that the no confidence motion moved against the petitioner has been carried out by clear majority.

This Court, in Ghanshyam Yadav v. Rameshwar Sahu & Others held that no prejudice, whatsoever is caused in any manner when the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority. Thus, no confidence motion cannot be declared as null and void. In the instant case, 19 members voted in favour of the no-confidence motion, 1 candidate voted against the no-confidence motion and one vote was declared invalid. Thus, it is clear that the members of the Gram Panchayat have lost faith in the Sarpanch, and thus, he was removed by no-confidence motion.

In view of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.