Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 75 (CHH)

Sharda Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

2022-02-07

P.SAM KOSHY

body2022
JUDGMENT : P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. The matter revolves around the no confidence motion that was initiated against the petitioner who was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jora under Janpad Panchayat Bhilaigarh, district Balodabazar-Bhatapara. The notice for no confidence motion at the first instance was issued on 13.10.2021. On the said notice, a no confidence motion meeting was ordered to be convened on 26th October, 2021. However, the no confidence motion meeting could not be held on 26.10.2021 and the matter stood adjourned on a couple of occasions. The order of convening the meeting of no confidence motion on 26.10.2021 was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in WPC No. 4516/2021. The writ petition came up for hearing on 11.11.2021. This Court while issuing notice to the respondents in the said writ petition had stayed the no confidence motion proceeding initiated against the petitioner and at the same time the Panchs were given the liberty to move a fresh notice of no confidence motion if they so want. 2. From perusal of records it appears that the Panchs of the village subsequently issued a fresh notice and a fresh proceeding was initiated. A fresh application was filed on 29.01.2022 upon which the respondent authorities took cognizance and ordered for issuance of notice and further ordered to hold no confidence motion meeting on 05.02.2022. According to the counsel for petitioner, there is no further date given by the respondent authorities for holding of the meeting. 3. The instant writ petition was filed on 03.02.2022 i.e. before the date of no confidence motion meeting that was ordered to be held on 05.02.2022. However, the matter has come up for hearing today. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the parties submit that the no confidence motion meeting to be held on 05.02.2022 did not materialize as the Presiding Officer had gone on leave. 4. The contention of the counsel for petitioner is that the notice for holding the meeting on 05.02.2022 is bad in law as there is requirement of 7 clear days notice to be provided. In the instant case, the no confidence motion meeting was ordered to be held on the 7th day itself. Thus, there was no clear 7 days time made available. 5. In the instant case, the no confidence motion meeting was ordered to be held on the 7th day itself. Thus, there was no clear 7 days time made available. 5. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned State counsel submits that since the no confidence motion meeting to be held on 05.02.2022 did not materialize, a fresh date would have to be given. He further submits that in any case the next date to be given by the authorities concerned would be clearly more than 7 days time from the date the notice was issued by the respondent authorities on 29.01.2022. 6. Learned counsel appearing on the application for impleadment submits that the petitioner somehow seems to be hand and glove with the local administration and has been successful in getting the meetings and the date of hearings adjourned on one pretext or another. He further submits that all that they want is a properly convened meeting irrespective of the outcome of the meeting. 7. Given the entire facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly considering the fact that the meeting to be held on 05.02.2022 did not materialize and a fresh meeting would in any way be required for the motion to be put in action. This Court therefore as of now is of the opinion that let the respondents 2 to 5, as the case may be, take steps afresh in holding a meeting in terms of the application filed by the Panchs on 29.01.2022 and ensure that the notice is issued with a gap of clear 7 days time so that the grievance of petitioner stands redressed. 8. The respondents 2 to 5 thereafter would take an appropriate decision in the light of the outcome of the said meeting. Considering the fact that the case of no confidence motion against the petitioner is being getting adjourned for some reason or other since October, 2021 onwards, the respondents 2 to 5 are directed to ensure that appropriate steps are taken at the earliest for the conclusion of the said proceedings in accordance with law. 9. State counsel is also directed to ensure that necessary instructions are given to the local administration in this regard to ensure that the proceedings are concluded without any further delay. 10. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.