ORDER : 1. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is interconnected, therefore, both the writ petition heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioner filed WPC No. 1198 of 2022 challenging the memo dated 23.02.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2/ SDO(R) whereby Respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa to maintain status quo with respect to post of sarpanch as on 16.09.2021 seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent no. 2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Pauna, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. In WPC No. 3555 of 2022, correctness and sustainability of the order dated 27.12.2021 is challenged and prayed for following reliefs. “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the matter. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to uphold the validity of the No Confidence Motion taken place on 06.03.2021 10.4 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 4. For convenience, WPC No. 3555 of 2022 is taken as lead case. 5. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that Respondent No. 5 was an elected Sarpanch of village panchayat Pauna, Janpad Panchayat Akaltara District Janjgir-Champa. Elected panchas of the village panchayat submitted an application before the prescribed authority i.e., Respondent No. 4 on 22.02.2021 for bringing no-confidence motion against the elected Sarpanch/ Respondent No. 5. The prescribed authority after receipt of the application has issued notice on 25.02.2021 fixing the date of meeting to be convened for no-confidence motion on 06.03.2021. On the scheduled date, motion was carried out with majority. The prescribed authority after receipt of the application has issued notice on 25.02.2021 fixing the date of meeting to be convened for no-confidence motion on 06.03.2021. On the scheduled date, motion was carried out with majority. The no-confidence motion carried out by majority was put to challenge by Respondent No. 5 before Respondent No. 2/ Collector by filing an application under Section 21(4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhniyam, 1993 (for short “Adhiniyam, 1993” The reference filed by Respondent No. 5 was dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2021 against which Respondent No. 5 preferred revision as provided under Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. The Revision application submitted by Respondent No. 5 was allowed against which one Ramgopal Kashyap filed writ petition bearing WPC No. 167 of 2022 in which the order of status quo was passed. During pendency of said writ petition, Ramgopal Kashyap died and thereafter petitioner herein (in WPC No. 3555/2022) filed fresh writ petition challenging the order of Commissioner and on the first date of hearing an order of status quo with respect to position of the parties was obtained on 22.08.2022. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that Respondent No. 5 was elected as Sarpanch. The elected panchas of the village panchayat submitted an application before the prescribed authority for bringing no-confidence motion against Respondent No. 5 as provided under Section 21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Rules, 1994. The prescribed authority after receipt of an application, appointed presiding officer, fixing date, time and place of meeting, issued notice to elected panchas on 25.02.2021. Respondent No. 5 upon receipt of notice filed writ petition bearing WPC No. 1494 of 2021. In the said writ petition, order of prescribed authority dated 22.02.2021 as also the notice of no-confidence motion was put to challenge. He would also submit that there is some typographical error in the writ petition, the order of prescribed authority is dated 22.02.2021 (wrongly mentioned as 25.02.2021) and the notice was issued on 25.02.2021. In the said writ petition, order of prescribed authority dated 22.02.2021 as also the notice of no-confidence motion was put to challenge. He would also submit that there is some typographical error in the writ petition, the order of prescribed authority is dated 22.02.2021 (wrongly mentioned as 25.02.2021) and the notice was issued on 25.02.2021. He contended that as the Respondent No. 5/ elected Sarpanch has challenged the issuance of notice in earlier writ petition, the ground raised by Respondent No. 5 in reference application as also in a revision that there was no valid service of notice upon Respondent No. 5 is not correct. There was proper service of notice upon Respondent No. 5 and other elected panchas. On the scheduled date, meeting of no-confidence was convened and after conclusion of meeting the presiding officer declared the motion carried out by majority. The Collector in its order dated 16.08.2021 in the proceedings under Section 21(4) Adhiniyam 1993, has clearly observed that out of 21, 17 members participated in meeting and all the 17 members have voted in favour of no-confidence. The ground raised that there was no effective and valid service of notice upon Respondent No. 5 was discarded by the Collector and accordingly dismissed the reference application. The order of Collector was put to challenge and the revisional authority by cryptic and non-speaking order has allowed the revision observing that there was violation of provisions of law and principles of natural justice and set aside the order passed by the Collector dated 16.08.2021. 7. Mr. Amiykant Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 would submit that the writ petition suffers with delay and laches and it is to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. He contended that after passing of order by the revisional authority allowing the revision petition one Ramgopal Kashyap filed writ petition in which petitioner was a party respondent. Petitioner immediately has not filed writ petition challenging the order of Respondent No. 3/ Commissioner. The order passed by Respondent No. 3 is dated 27.12.2021 and the writ petition is filed only on 10.08.2022 without there being any explanation of delay. He would submit that as the petitioner is a fence sitter, no relief as prayed for in writ petition can be granted. The order passed by Respondent No. 3 is dated 27.12.2021 and the writ petition is filed only on 10.08.2022 without there being any explanation of delay. He would submit that as the petitioner is a fence sitter, no relief as prayed for in writ petition can be granted. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the case of Chairman, State Bank of India vs. M. J. James [ 2022 (2) SCC 301 ]. 8. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would support the order passed by Respondent No. 3. He also submits that pursuant to the observation made, record is available with him. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record along with writ petition as also the record of the no-confidence motion proceedings placed before this court by the State counsel. 10. Sofar as, the objection raised by the counsel for Respondent No. 5 of delay in filing writ petition is concerned, no specific period for filing of writ petition is prescribed. Order passed by the Commissioner, Annexure P-1, which is subject matter of writ petition is dated 27.12.2021, writ petition was filed on 10.08.2022, within a period of 08 months. Where no specific period of limitation is prescribed for challenging any order, it is expected from a person challenging any order or seeking any relief to file the petition/ proceeding within reasonable time. The reasonable time for filing writ petition or any proceeding where no specific period is prescribed will depend on facts of each case. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the reasonable period in the matter of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [ (1992) 3 SCC 136 ; 1992 AIR 1414]. Further the order passed by the Commissioner was put to challenge by one Ramgopal Kashyap who was elected panch and was nominated as officiating Sarpanch in WPC No. 167 of 2022, immediately after passing of order, however, after death of Ramgopal Kashyap (officiating Sarpanch) petitioner was nominated as officiating Sarpanch and thereafter he filed writ petition. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in filing of writ petition. The case of M.J. James (supra) relied upon by the counsel for petitioner is entirely on different facts. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in filing of writ petition. The case of M.J. James (supra) relied upon by the counsel for petitioner is entirely on different facts. In the said case, the respondents therein have filed memorandum of appeal after four years and five months after his dismissal. The dismissal of respondent therein was on account of charges of financial irregularities while working with the Bank. 12. For the foregoing discussion, the submission of learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 that writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 13. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for petitioner on merits of the case, perused the proceedings available in the record placed by the learned counsel for petitioner. Perusal of record would show that 17 elected panchas submitted an application before the prescribed authority under Rule 3(1) of the Rules of 1994. The prescribed authority registered the case as revenue proceeding, appointed Tahsildar, Akaltara as presiding officer, issued notice on 25.02.2021 fixing the date of convening meeting of no-confidence motion on 06.03.2021 at 02:00 pm. On the date fixed, meeting was held and in the meeting 17 elected panchas participated. From perusal of resolution of no-confidence meeting, it would show that as per the proceedings drawn, village panchayat consists of 21 elected panchas including Sarpanch out of which 17 participated in the meeting, 4 remained absent. All the 17 voted in favour of motion and the presiding officer held the motion carried out by majority. 14. Requirement under Section 21(1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 is, resolution to be passed by majority of not less than three fourth of panchas present and voting and such majority should be 2/3rd of the total number of panchas constituting Gram Panchayat. In the facts of the case, the requirement under Section 21(1) is fulfilled. 15. Perusal of order under challenge passed by the Commissioner would show that the Commissioner after discussing the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties has allowed the revision only observing that principle of natural justice is not followed. In the facts of the case, the requirement under Section 21(1) is fulfilled. 15. Perusal of order under challenge passed by the Commissioner would show that the Commissioner after discussing the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties has allowed the revision only observing that principle of natural justice is not followed. The meeting of no-confidence motion is in violation of Rules 3, 4 and 6 of the Rules of 1994 and the order passed by the Collector is in contravention of provision under the Adhiniyam, 1993 and the rules framed thereunder, further observing that the Collector has not considered the service of notices under Rules of 1995 and has passed the impugned order allowing revision. The Commissioner has not passed speaking order specifying as to how the meeting of no-confidence is in violation of Rules of 1994 or how there is violation of principles of natural justice. The Commissioner dealt with the revision as a quasi judicial authority and therefore it is duty cast upon the said authority while passing the order to assign reasons for arriving at a conclusion which is missing in the order impugned passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others [2010 (9) SCC 496] summerized the principles on the recording of reasons and held thus : “47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a). In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b). A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c). Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d). Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e). Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f). Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g). Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h). (e). Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f). Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g). Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h). The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i). Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j). Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k). If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l). Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubberstamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m). It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n). Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o). In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. (o). In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". 16. In the case at hand as discussed, Commissioner in its order has not assigned specific reasons to arrive at a conclusion that there is violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Rules 3, 4 & 6 of the Rules 1994, the order is a non-speaking and non reasoned order and therefore it is not sustainable. 17. Sofar as, service of notice is concerned, undisputedly after receipt of notice Respondent No. 5 has filed writ petition challenging the notice dated 25.02.2021 and the order of the SDO(R) dated 22.02.2021 in WPC No. 1494/2021. The said writ petition was filed on 02.03.2021 as reflecting from the date in the writ petition. 18. For the foregoing discussion, writ petition filed by the petitioner in WPC No. 3555 of 2022 is allowed and the order of Commissioner dated 06.09.2021 Annexure P-5 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Respondent No. 3/ Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur to pass speaking and reasoned order afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 19. In the Writ Petition (C) No. 1198 of 2022, the relief sought for the petitioner is to allow him to work as Sarpanch of village panchayat, Akaltara. The petitioner lost confidence by the elected panchas and according to provision under Section 21(1) of the Adhiniyam 1993, he ceases to hold the office forthwith upon passing of no-confidence motion, no relief as prayed for in this petition can be granted in the facts of the case. Accordingly, writ petition being sans merit is dismissed.