Kaushalya Turkiya W/o Cheduream Turkiya vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 27-5- 2026 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Collector, Balodabazar, Bhatapra in Case No. 202603210100029/A-89/2025-26 by which the Collector has rejected the application for grant of stay as there is no power conferred under Section 21 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyazm, 1993 to stay on "no confidence motion" allowed by the Panchayat against the panch or sarpanch and fixed on 8-6-2026 for final hearing on application submitted by the petitiojner on 27-3-2026.

The brief facts of the case reflected from the record are that the petitioner is a Sarpanch of village Daawanbod, Janpad Panchayat against whom no confidence motion was moved by the respondents which was allowed by absolute majority on 23-3-2026 and against that he has moved an application under sub-section4 of Section 21 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 .

The Collector, Baloda Bazar has not decided the said application, therefore, the petitioner has filed WPC No. 2006 of 2026 wherein this Court vide order dated 29-4-2026 has passed the following order.

"5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the submission made by the State that the application shall be considered upon filing of an application for urgent hearing, it is directed that the petitioner shall prefer an appropriate application seeking urgent hearing before the concerned Collector, and upon such application being filed, the concerned Collector shall consider and decide the same expeditiously along with the petitioner's application under Section of the 1995 Rules, in accordance with law"

From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is quite vivid that no specific date was given by this court to decide the same application. In the proceeding on 11-5-2026 and in pursuance of that election programme, the elction to be conducted on 1-6-2026 and oath ceremony of newly elected Sarpanch will be solemnised on 4-6-2026.

The record of the writ petition would show that the appliction submitted by the petitioner was pending wherein the Collector has already issued notice to all the respondents who have also filed their reply as reflected from the order sheet filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner on the above factual foundation, would submit that the learned Collector should have decided the application before 1-6-2026 so that legality and propriety of that no confidence motion may be examined by the competent authority and thereafter, if there is necessity to conduct the election, then election can be conducted for the post which is likely to be vacant in view of no confidence motion. In the eventuality of no confidence motion is affirmed by the Collector, the election can very well be conducted, as such he would pray for directing the respondents to keep election to be scheduled on 1-6-2026 in abeyance.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection.

From perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P/2), it is quite vivid that there is no illegality in passing such rejection of interim applilcation as the legislature does not confer any power to Collector to stay the effect and operation of no confidence motion which has been allowed by the majority of sarpanch who was voice of the people of that Panchayat. As such, the impugend order so far as rejection of interim order is affirmed.

So far as non-deciding the application filed by the Collector submitted by the petitioner under Section 21 (4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, it is directed that the Collector shall decide the same on 8-6-2026 or within further ten days from 8-6-2026 by well reasoned order considering the grounds raised by the petitioner.

Further, prayer of the petitioner for staying of the further proceeding with regard to conduction of election on 1-6-2026 deserves to be rejected in view of well settled position of law that once the election proceeding is started, normally the Court should not interfere with the election proceeding and election proceeding should reach to its final logical end.

Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again deprecated interference in election process in its latest judgment in the case of Sandeep Singh Bora vs. Narensdra Singh Deopa and others, arising out of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyamj, reported in 2026 INSC 105 and has passed the following order..

"12.i. By virtue of the express constitutional embargo contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, the High Court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where a law enacted by the State Legislature provides for the remedy of an election petition to redress grievances arising during the course of an election.

II. The election process cannot be lightly interdicted or stalled at the behest of an individual grievance. The right to contest or question an election being statutory in nature, must be strictly construed and exercised in accordance with the statute governing the field. The High Court must, therefore, eschew the grant of liberal interim reliefs in favour of individuals and instead remain mindful of the overarching public interest in ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted conduct of elections across the State.

Iii. In respect of individual grievances, the ultimate and exclusive remedy lies by way of an election petition. Given the non-obstante nature of Article 243-O of the Constitution, its mandate is required to be adhered to in both letter and spirit. Where the statute provides a complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal, the extraordinary exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would defeat the very object for which Article 243-O was enacted as a non-obstante provision.

12.In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme , I am of the view that prayer of the petitioner for staying of the further election proceeding deserves to be rejcted and accordingly it is rejected.

13.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Balodabazar to decide the saied application submitted by the petitioner under Section 21(4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam on 8-6-2026 or within further ten days from 8-6-2026, in accordance with law. It is also directed that the repondents shall not avoid the proceeding and will cooperate in concluding the proceedsing within time framed by this Court. If the private respondents intend to delay the proceeding, then the Collector is free to proceed against them, in accordance with law.

14.Consequently, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.