Lata Devi Ghritlahre vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The instant present writ petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:-

“10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.

10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside entire proceeding of the motion of no-confidence which is being taken by respondent No.3 in the interest of justice.”

The facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition and the subsequent development in brief is narrated as under:-

The petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Binauri, under Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur elected in January, 2020. After having discharged her duties for sometime the respondents No. 5 to 18 moved a complaint before the respondent No.3 and prayed for initiation of a no-confidence motion against the petitioner in terms of Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with Chhattisgarh (Gram Panchayat ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ike President Tatha Vice-President ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (in short “Niyam of 1994”). Based upon the said request made by the respondents No. 5 to 18 the respondent No.3 initiated the proceedings under the aforementioned Niyam of 1994 and a notice dated 23.08.2021 was issued. The said initiation of the no-confidence proceeding was challenged by the petitioner by way of WPC No. 3500/2021. The said present writ petition finally came up for hearing on 02.09.2021 and this Court disposed of the said present writ petition making the following observations:-

“4. The document filed before this Court would show that initially the notice which was under challenge was of 23.08.2021 (Annexure P- 1) and the prayer of the writ petition is confined to the notice. The entire proceedings of the no confidence motion which is carried out is not under challenge. The petitioner himself has placed on record a copy of the notice dated 27.08.2021 wherein no confidence motion is fixed on 06.09.2021, therefore, the subsequent notice having not been challenged which was received by the petitioner on 29.08.2021, the relief cannot be granted to stay the proceeding which is to be carried out pursuant to the subsequent notice issued.

With respect to the completion of the proceeding after receipt of notice exceeding 15 days, this Court in case of Ramdayal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 10.05.2019 in WPC No.1720 of 2019 has held the time specified is not mandatory in nature. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as of now. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.”

It may be noted that the earlier present writ petition was disposed of in the light of the subsequent notice of no-confidence issued by the respondents on 27.08.2021 fixing the date of the meeting of no-confidence motion to be on 06.09.2021. It is this subsequent notice dated 27.08.2021 which has led to the filing of the present writ petition vide Annexure P/1. This Court while hearing the matter on admission on 13.09.2021 passed an order staying the effect of the no-confidence motion if carried out on 06.09.2021 till the next date of hearing.

The contention of the petitioner all along is that the entire proceedings drawn by the respondents is in contravention to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and the Rules framed under the aforesaid Niyam of 1994. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entire proceedings have been drawn by the respondents with a premeditated approach as would be evident that inspite of the petitioner seeking certified copy of all the proceedings, the same were denied and the petitioner was also deprived of participation in the meeting of the no-confidence motion held on 06.09.2021. Further the petitioner was also not provided an opportunity to effectively defend nor was he given an opportunity to speak in the proceedings held on 06.09.2021. Thus, the entire proceedings stands vitiated.

It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the fact that undisputedly the no-confidence motion was held on 06.09.2021. The no-confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner was fully aware of the fact that the no-confidence motion has been passed against him. Section 21 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam provides a mechanism for challenging the order of no-confidence motion if any passed against a Sarpanch or an Up-sarpanch. For ready reference sub-section (4) of Section 21 reads as under:-

“21. No-confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. -

(1) xxxxxx

(2) xxxxxx

(3) xxxxxx

(4) If the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under sub-section (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, and his decision shall be final.”

For reasons best known the petitioner did not think it fit to avail the said remedy that is available under Section 21(4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. Neither did the petitioner amend the present writ petition assailing the proceedings dated 06.09.2021 i.e. the proceedings that were passed on the date the meeting of no-confidence motion was held.

On a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the hearing as regards the fact that the proceedings dated 06.09.2021 not having been challenged in the present writ petition, the counsel took a specific stand that the proceedings dated 06.09.2021 is not required to be challenged in the facts of the present case, particularly when by way of the present writ petition the initiation of the entire no-confidence motion was challenged in the present writ petition. Therefore the subsequent decision and development even if it is not challenged, the writ petition can still be heard and this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can decide the veracity of the decision dated 06.09.2021 wherein the motion of no-confidence was passed against the petitioner.

The plain perusal of the interim order that was passed by this Court on 13.09.2021 would clearly give an indication that if a no-confidence motion has been carried out on 06.09.2021, the same shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing, which in other words means that even on 13.09.2021 when the matter was taken up for hearing on admission and interim relief, it was not clear whether the no-confidence motion has been passed or not. The next think that needs to be appreciated is the fact that in the earlier round of litigation that the petitioner had preferred WPC No. 3500/2021, the said present writ petition was disposed of only in the light of the subsequent development that had transpired and fresh notice for holding a meeting of no-confidence was issued.

This High Court while disposing of the said writ petition WPC No. 3500/2021 was of the firm view that in the light of the subsequent notice having been issued and the subsequent notice having not been challenged, the relief sought for cannot be granted. This fact would be evident from the plain reading of paragraph No.4 of the said order of this Court dated 02.09.2021 in WPC No. 3500/2021.

Applying the same analogy in the instant case also admittedly on 06.01.2021 the no-confidence motion meeting was held, the motion was passed against the petitioner and this fact is well known to the petitioner. Her substantial ground also is that she was not given an effective hearing on 06.09.2021. Inspite of that the petitioner does not choose to amend the petition by assailing the decision/order/resolution dated 06.09.2021. The interim relief granted also was without being confirm as to whether the no-confidence motion has been passed or not. The petitioner having got an interim order in her favour to the extent of the effect and operation of the order dated 06.01.2021 being stayed, there was no reason why the petitioner should not have amended the petition assailing the order dated 06.09.2021. On the contrary the counsel takes a categorical stand that there is no need to challenge the order/resolution dated 06.09.2021 or to amend the petition.

Considering the fact that the no-confidence motion and the proceedings drawn thereon has attained its finality on 06.09.2021. Technically it was essentially required for the petitioner to have amended the present petition or could have challenged the no-confidence motion in terms of the statutory remedy available to him. In the absence of a challenge to the order/resolution dated 16.09.2021. The relief sought for in the present writ petition, particularly the petition which was filed much before the order dated 06.09.2021 was passed would not be sustainable nor can this Court quash an order/resolution which is not under challenge in the writ petition. The view of this Court stands fortified by the earlier order of this Court in the case of the petitioner herself in WPC No. 3500/2021 disposed of on 02.09.2021.

Thus, for the aforesaid reason, without entering into the merits of the case the writ petition on this technical ground itself deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.

The interim order earlier granted also stands vacated.