High CourtsDivision Bench

Jayanti Ghanshyam Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 20 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 CHH CK 0048

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ · Parth Prateem Sahu, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 — Section 21(4)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 393 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 366 words
1.

Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3.

2.

This appeal is presented against an order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3107 of 2022 disposing of the writ petition, in essence, declining to grant reliefs as sought for.

3.

The appellant is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Malidih, Tahsil and District Mahasamund. A meeting was convened on 19.07.2022 for considering a no confidence motion against the appellant. The appellant had primarily prayed for quashing of the intimation of no confidence motion, Annexure P/1 to the writ petition. A prayer for staying the same was also made. As no relief was granted, the meeting for dismissing the no confidence motion was held on 19.07.2022 and it is submitted by Mr. Ruparel that no confidence motion has been adopted against the appellant.

4.

Mr. Ruparel submits that the appellant will take recourse to the provisions contained in Section 21(4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, the Act of 1993) to challenge the validity of the motion carried out against the appellant. He further submits that despite the observations made by the learned Single Judge that relevant information regarding notice of no confidence motion submitted by respondents No. 4 to 14 should be made available to the appellant, the same was not furnished by the Collector.

5.

Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate contradicts the aforesaid submission made by Mr. Ruparel and contends that necessary information/documents were furnished to the appellant.

6.

We make no comments on this aspect of the matter.

7.

Since the no confidence motion has already been adopted against the appellant, we are of the opinion that this appeal has been rendered infructuous.

8.

On due consideration, while disposing of the appeal as infructuous, we direct the Collector that in the event of any dispute being referred by the appellant to him under Section 21(4) of the Act of 1993, the same shall be decided within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such reference.

9.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.