Lata Devi Ghritlahre vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. K.A. Ansari, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Meera Ansari and Mr. Aman Ansari, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 5 to 18. Mr. Prem Lal Kanwar, Secretary, Gram Pranchayat, Binauri (respondent No.4) is present in person.

This writ appeal is preferred against an order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 3684 of 2021, whereby, the writ petition was dismissed.

The writ petition was filed by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Binauri.

The respondents No. 5 to 18 herein had submitted a requisition for initiation of a 'no-confidence motion' in terms of Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, Niyam of 1993) read with Chhattisgarh (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, 'Niyam of 1994').

To hold the meeting for no-confidence motion, a notice dated 23.08.2021 was issued, which came to be challenged in Writ Petition (C) No. 3500 of 2021.

Subsequently, another notice dated 27.08.2021 was issued fixing the date of meeting for holding no-confidence motion on 06.09.2021. The same not being challenged, Writ Petition (C) No.3500 of 2021 was dismissed.

Subsequently, the present writ petition out of which the appeal arises was filed to quash/set aside entire proceeding of motion of no-confidence. No specific challenge was made to the notice dated 27.08.2021.

The aforesaid writ petition was filed on 04.09.2021.

On 06.09.2021, a resolution of no-confidence was passed by 14 members out of 17 members against the writ petitioner.

On 13.09.2021, the learned Single Judge of this Court had stayed the no-confidence motion, if carried out on 06.09.2021, till the next date of hearing. Matter was thereafter listed on 18.10.2021 and on a number of subsequent dates before the petition was finally dismissed by the order which is assailed in this appeal. There was no further order extending the interim order.

Be that as it may.

Mr. Khetrapal submits that Section 21(2) of the Niyam of 1993 visualizes grant of opportunity to the person against whom no confidence motion is moved to speak and take part in the meeting in which no-confidence motion is sought to be moved. It is contended by Mr. Khetrapal that the appellant was prevented from entering into the meeting hall along with two of his supporters and in that regard, a complaint was lodged before the Collector on 07.09.2021. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to a covering memo dated 08.09.2021, wherein a copy of the complaint stated to have been filed before the Collector was enclosed.

A perusal of the document goes to show that the same is filed without there being any pleadings and without any affidavit. The veracity of such document cannot be ascertained in absence of appropriate pleading, duly supported by affidavit.

During the entire period from 07.09.2021 to the date of hearing of the writ petition on 06.07.2022, neither the resolution adopted on 06.09.2022 was brought on record nor any affidavit was filed stating that the petitioner was prevented from attending the meeting and to speak. The resolution also was not challenged. It is in that circumstance, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

Having regard to the events which have been noticed, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Section 21 (4) of Niyam of 1993 provides that if the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried under Section 21(1), 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.

Though the resolution dated 06.09.2021 was not assailed, at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that initial order of the learned Single Judge provided that the no-confidence motion taken against the petitioner on 06.09.2021 shall not be given effect to.

In that circumstance, though period of seven days has elapsed long back, in order not to cause any prejudice to the petitioner, we permit the petitioner, if so advised, to take recourse to Section 21(4) of Niyam of 1993 within a period of seven days from today and if recourse, as such, is taken on the basis of liberty granted by this Court, the Collector shall decide the reference on merit in accordance with law in terms of Section 21(4) of Niyam of 1993.

With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of.