Ghanshyam Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for

respondents No. 1 to 6 and Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7/ writ petitioner.

I.A. No. 2 of 2022 is an application for grant of leave to prefer the appeal against the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

Writ Petition (C) No. 5528 of 2021, whereby, the effect and operation of notice dated 20.12.2021 and the application dated 10.12.2021 of Gram

Panchayat, Kaudiya as well as the proceeding before the respondent No. 3, i.e., Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authority

(Panchayat) were stayed till the next date of hearing.

The writ petition was also admitted and by the said order, the case was directed to be listed after four weeks. Notice was directed to be issued to

respondents No. 5 and 6 by ordinary post as well as registered post.

Mr. Khetrapal submits that the appellant along with ‘9 Panchas’ of the Gram Panchayat, Kaudiya had submitted a notice before the

respondent No. 3, as prescribed under Rule 3(1) of 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 of

1994’), proposing a ‘no confidence motion’ against the respondent No. 7/ writ petitioner.

Although the said notice was, amongst others, assailed in the writ petition, the requisitionists of the ‘no confidence motion’ were not made

parties. It is submitted that great prejudice has been caused to the appellant in view of passing of the impugned interim order, that too, when he was

not arrayed as a party/ respondent.

On due consideration, we are of the opinion that leave ought to be granted. Accordingly, leave is granted.

I.A. No. 2 of 2022 is stand disposed of.

Also heard learned counsel for the parties on the appeal.

A perusal of the order dated 27.12.2021 goes to show that contentions were advanced by the writ petitioner that there was infraction of Sub-Rule

(3) of the Rules of 1994 in specifying date, time and place of the meeting for considering the ‘no confidence motion’.

The date fixed for ‘no confidence motion’ was fixed on 28.12.2021, which is already over.

Considering the matter in its entirety, the appellant is arrayed as respondent No. 7 in the writ petition. It is also provided that notices on

respondents No. 5 and 6 are to be treated as served, as for respondents No. 5 and 6, who are government employees, Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned

Deputy Advocate General has entered appearance in this appeal.

In that view of the matter, service is complete in the writ petition.

In the attending facts and circumstances, instead of considering the grievance raised in the appeal, it is considered appropriate to request the

learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition as early as possible and for that purpose, Registry is directed to list the case before the Single Judge

having roster on 1st of February, 2022.

Pleadings may be completed in the meantime.

The writ appeal stands, accordingly, disposed of.