Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 340 (CHH)

GANGA BAI v. STATE OF C. G.

2011-10-21

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2011
ORDER 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.06.2011 (Annexure P/I) passed by the Additional Collector, Balodabazar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure P/2) whereby the no-confidence motion against the petitioner has been declared as carried out by 16 votes. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the UpSarpanch and 11 other panchas of Gram Panchayat, Makdi gave an intimation to the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh, District Raipur under sub-rule (1) of Rule (3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (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 the Rules1994) for no-confidence motion against the petitioner, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, on the allegation of financial irregularities on 14.03.2011. The SDO registered a case and fixed the date for further order on 17.03.2011 and appointed N.R.Dhurve, Tahsildar Bilaigarh, as Presiding Officer, for convening the meeting of no-confidence motion against the petitioner on 28.03.2011. Thereafter, the no-confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred the dispute under section 21(4) of the Chhattissarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, (for short, 'the Adhiniyam'), challenging the proceedings of no-confidence motion as well as declaration to the effect that no confidence motion against the petitioner was carried out. The Additional Collector, Balodabazar, vide order dated 20.06.2011 (Annexure P/1) held that the notice to hold no confidence motion on 28.03.2011 was issued on 17.03.2011 and the date of receipt is not important but the date of issue of notice is important. The Additional Collector further held that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and he participated in the proceedings also and tendered his apology for having committed mistakes to the Up-Sarpanch and other Panchas. 4. The Additional Collector further held that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and he participated in the proceedings also and tendered his apology for having committed mistakes to the Up-Sarpanch and other Panchas. 4. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the no-confidence motion was carried out by 3/4 th majority, however, the whole - proceeding was in violation of the Rules, 1994 as according to Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, the prescribed authority, on receiving the notice under sub rule (1) shall sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which hour and at which the notice was given to him and shall acknowledge its receipts, but in the instant case, on perusal of show cause notice dated 14.03.2011, it is evident that no time has been mentioned, thus, the whole proceedings suffer from violation of mandatory rules. Shri Dubey further submits the petitioner was not given opportunity to speak at the time of no-confidence motion held on 28.03.2011. The petitioner received notice only three days before the date fixed for noconfidence motion which ought to have been given 7 days before the date of the meeting. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. It is an admitted position that the no-confidence motion was carried out against the petitioner by thumping majority as 16 members voted in favour of no-confidence motion and only one against the no-confidence motion. 7. The Additional Collector, in the dispute referred under section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam, has considered the issues raised before him as well as before this Court. The Additional Collector has rightly come to the conclusion that the date of receipt of notice before convening the meeting of the Gram Panchayat specifying date, time and place is not to be counted from the date of receipt of the notice, but from the date of its dispatch. It is also clear that the petitioner had full opportunity in the meeting and he addressed the Up-Sarpanch and other members of the Gram Panchayat also. It is not in dispute that the notice was despatched immediately after 17.03.2011 when it was decided to convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 28.03.2011. 8. It is also clear that the petitioner had full opportunity in the meeting and he addressed the Up-Sarpanch and other members of the Gram Panchayat also. It is not in dispute that the notice was despatched immediately after 17.03.2011 when it was decided to convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 28.03.2011. 8. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the issue of no certificate as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 is a procedural requirement which has to be followed. However, satisfaction of the prescribed authority with regard to notice to move the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch was clearly found in the order dated 17.03.2011, whereby it was decided to convene a meeting to initiate motion of no-confidence against the petitioner on 28.03.2011. 9. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 which is in respect of issue of notice provides for dispatch of notice shall be seven days before the date of meeting. Seven days is accordingly not to be counted from the date of receipt of the notice, but from the date of its dispatch. Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 reads as under: "3(3)...The notice of such meeting specifying the date, lime and place thereof shall he caused to be despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting." 10. In an identical matter, this Court, in Pilaram Dewangan & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others 2008(1) BLJ 40 observed as under: "16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jai Charan Lal Anal V. The State of UP & Others (AIR 1968 SC 5 (v 55 C2) while dealing with the provisions under Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 provides for clear 7 days intervention between date of dispatch of notice and date of meting observed that "the subsection says that the District Magistrate shall send the notice not less than seven clear days before the date of the meeting and the word 'send' shows that the critical date is the date of the despatch of the notice. As the notice was sent on the 17th and the meeting was to be called on the 25th, it is obvious that seven clear days did intervene and there was no breach of this part of the section". The identical facts and provisions of law are involved in the present case. The notice was despatched on 22.8.2006 for the meeting to be held on 30.08.2006. Thus, there were 7 clear days between the date of despatch and the date of meeting." 11. Election is the basic pillar of the democratic elections. A candidate who participates in the election process gets elected by majority of votes polled in his favour. In a similar way, when a no-confidence motion is carried against an elected candidate, and the motion is carried out by a clear majority, the same cannot be held as illegal merely on the ground of some technical defects and the allegations made by the petitioner, which are not supported by any documentary evidence, or otherwise. The no-confidence motion has been passed by a clear majority in a proper resolution held in presence of the petitioner. 12. This Court in Ghanshyam Yadav Vs. Rameshwar Sahu & Other 2007(2) BLJ 181 held that no prejudice, whatsoever is caused in any manner when the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority. In the instant case, it is clear that the members of the Gram Panchayat have lost faith in the Sarpanch, and thus, he was removed by no-confidence motion. 13. In view of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders which are legal, just and- proper. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Petition Dismissed.