Smt Punimati vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13th October, 2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the application of the petitioner u/s 21(4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, before the Additional Collector, was dismissed.

The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was a duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Paraskol, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh. The members of Gram Panchayat sent a notice to the prescribed authority to move no confidence motion against the petitioner under Rule 3(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice- President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (for short "the Niyam"). The case was registered on 23rd September, 2011.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the same date, on satisfying, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), held that the applicants have submitted the notice in the prescribed form stating therein that they are members of the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, the prescribed officer, appointed Shri A.K.Lakda, Tahsildar, as presiding officer for initiating a no confidence motion against the petitioner.

After having collected all the requisite information vide order dated 24th September, 2011 (Annexure P-5), Shri Lakda, Tahsildar was appointed as presiding officer u/s 11 of the Act. There is no grievance with regard to other requirements i.e. verification, issue of notice, showcause notice within the specified time, except that a certificate stating the date at which the notice was given to the prescribed authority under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 was not issued. The petitioner participated in the proceeding held on 5th October, 2011. In the proceeding, out of 13 office bearers, present in the meeting, 12 office bearers voted in favour of the no confidence motion, as is evident from the notice dated 07th October, 2011 (Annexure P-2).

It is not pointed out or established that the issue of non-issuance of certificate in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, was ever agitated either before initiation of the no confidence motion proceeding or thereafter, and as such, it cannot be held as fatal so as to declare the no confidence motion against the petitioner as bad, at this stage.

This Court in the case of Ghanshyam Yadav v. Rameshwar Sahu and Others (WP No. 6744 of 2006), decided on 5.12.2007 [2007 (2) BLJ 181], held that no prejudice, whatsoever is caused in any manner when the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority. Thus, no-confidence motion cannot be declared as null and void. In the present case, the position is the same as out of 13 members, two-third of the members constituting Panchayat were present and cast their votes. 12 votes, more than three-fourth of the members present and cast their votes in favour of no-confidence motion.

The aforesaid decision in Ghanshyam Yadav (supra) was referred with approval in Abha Patel (Smt.) v. State of Chhattisgarh ( 2008 (1) BLJ 87).

In view of foregoing, there is no merit in this case, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.