PETITIONER Applicant RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Balaji v. Amar Sai Others. WRtT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE

Ainar Sai, aged 55 yrs S/D Shri Budhia (Now Dead) Smt. Gyloria Minz, aged 32 yrs W/o Shri Jugul Minz Sint, Jarmania, aged 32 yrs w/o Shri Nandlal Smt. Tiharo, aged 40 yrs w/o Shri Rambriksha Sunderial, aged 64 yrs s/o Ghanshyam Smt, Puniaro, aged 28 yrs s/o Mahavir Smt. Phoolkuvar, aged 45 yrs s/oHardayal Smt Dhaneshwari, aged 50 yrs s/o Amar Sai Naiharo, aged 21 yrs w/o Bitul Robert, aged 26 yrs W/D Mohar Sai Snit. Rimani, aged 22 yrs w/o Shri Nu'mal Respondent-1 was up-sarpanch and Respondent 2 to 11 are of Gram-Panchayat- panchas Khala, PS-Khala, Ambikapur Distt -Surguja CG

12. 13, The CoUector; Surguja Distt - Surguja CG The Presiding Qfficer Shri Puspendra Sharma Tahsildar, Ambikapur FS-Ambikapur Distt-SurgujaCG WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OT THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'S 9 ^ ^ <T? ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 729 of 2013 PETITIONER Applicant RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Balaji. VERSUS Amar Sai & Others. WRtT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava and Shri S.K.Guha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDERfOPEN COURT) (Passed on 27*' day of June,2013) *'

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Surguja, in Panchayat Case No. 03/B-121/2012-13.

3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khala, Janpad Panchayat, Ambikapur, District Surguja. A meeting on no confidence motion against the petitioner was held under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prasatav) Niyam, 1994 (forshort 'the Rules, 1994') on 09.01.2012 in which the 13 members of the Gram Panchayat participated. In the said meeting, 10 voted in favour of the motion and 03 against the motion. Being . -aggrieved by the resolution of no-confidence, the petitioner referred the ^- ^lspute before the Collector, Surguja, under the provisions of section 21 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, f993') on the ground that the mandatory requirement as prescribed in Rule. 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 was not complied with and no copy of complaint was supplied to the petitioner. The Collector, Surguja, without considering the dispute in its true perspective, dismissed the reference by the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure P/1). Thus, this petition.

4. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that out of 10 votes, 02 votes were invalid, however, they were counted in favour of the no-confidence motion. It is further submitted that the notice for holding no-confidence motion meeting was not despatched before seven days, thus, it is also violative of the Rul6s, 1994. The petitioner was also not provided the copy of the complaint on the basis of which, the no-confidence motion meeting was called. The petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. So far as the time prescribed under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 is concerned, on bare reading of Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 it is evident that it provides that 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. As per the petitioner, notice was issued on 12.1 1.2012 and the meeting was held on 19.11 .2012. However, th& factual position, as stated in the order of the Collector is that the notices were despatched on 09.11.2012 that is prior to seven days of holding of the meeting i.e. 19.11.2012. Further, as far as grant of opportunity of hearing is concerned, the petitioner has not produced any 'document or evidence asto what prevented him from putting forward his case in the meeting. The petitioner has not made any application or "-f, ff' yw€x%. ^ ,-3'' \t 'tse£Ste> fi 8 •^^^.ai.'^ IY\ representation to the prescribed authority in this regard. So far as counting two alleged invalid votes in the no-confidence motion meeting is concerned, the fact remains that even if 02 votes are excluded, out of 13 members, including the petitioner, 03 voted against the motion, and 08 members voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. Thus, the criteria of passing of the motion by 2/3 majority, has been fulfilled.

6. 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 candidats, 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 petitoiner, 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.

7. This Court, in Ghanshyam Yadav v. Rameshwar Sahu & Others, 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.

8. In view of the.foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court, in exereise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which is legal, just and proper.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. '2007 (2;TBLJ 181 Kft \ s^' ^^ ^'^6

Ainar Sai, aged 55 yrs S/D Shri Budhia (Now Dead) Smt. Gyloria Minz, aged 32 yrs W/o Shri Jugul Minz Sint, Jarmania, aged 32 yrs w/o Shri Nandlal Smt. Tiharo, aged 40 yrs w/o Shri Rambriksha Sunderial, aged 64 yrs s/o Ghanshyam Smt, Puniaro, aged 28 yrs s/o Mahavir Smt. Phoolkuvar, aged 45 yrs s/oHardayal Smt Dhaneshwari, aged 50 yrs s/o Amar Sai Naiharo, aged 21 yrs w/o Bitul Robert, aged 26 yrs W/D Mohar Sai Snit. Rimani, aged 22 yrs w/o Shri Nu'mal Respondent-1 was up-sarpanch and Respondent 2 to 11 are of Gram-Panchayat- panchas Khala, PS-Khala, Ambikapur Distt -Surguja CG

12. 13, The CoUector; Surguja Distt - Surguja CG The Presiding Qfficer Shri Puspendra Sharma Tahsildar, Ambikapur FS-Ambikapur Distt-SurgujaCG WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OT THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'S 9 ^ ^ <T? ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 729 of 2013 PETITIONER Applicant RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Balaji. VERSUS Amar Sai & Others. WRtT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava and Shri S.K.Guha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDERfOPEN COURT) (Passed on 27*' day of June,2013) *'

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Surguja, in Panchayat Case No. 03/B-121/2012-13.

3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khala, Janpad Panchayat, Ambikapur, District Surguja. A meeting on no confidence motion against the petitioner was held under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prasatav) Niyam, 1994 (forshort 'the Rules, 1994') on 09.01.2012 in which the 13 members of the Gram Panchayat participated. In the said meeting, 10 voted in favour of the motion and 03 against the motion. Being . -aggrieved by the resolution of no-confidence, the petitioner referred the ^- ^lspute before the Collector, Surguja, under the provisions of section 21 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, f993') on the ground that the mandatory requirement as prescribed in Rule. 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 was not complied with and no copy of complaint was supplied to the petitioner. The Collector, Surguja, without considering the dispute in its true perspective, dismissed the reference by the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure P/1). Thus, this petition.

4. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that out of 10 votes, 02 votes were invalid, however, they were counted in favour of the no-confidence motion. It is further submitted that the notice for holding no-confidence motion meeting was not despatched before seven days, thus, it is also violative of the Rul6s, 1994. The petitioner was also not provided the copy of the complaint on the basis of which, the no-confidence motion meeting was called. The petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. So far as the time prescribed under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 is concerned, on bare reading of Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 it is evident that it provides that 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. As per the petitioner, notice was issued on 12.1 1.2012 and the meeting was held on 19.11 .2012. However, th& factual position, as stated in the order of the Collector is that the notices were despatched on 09.11.2012 that is prior to seven days of holding of the meeting i.e. 19.11.2012. Further, as far as grant of opportunity of hearing is concerned, the petitioner has not produced any 'document or evidence asto what prevented him from putting forward his case in the meeting. The petitioner has not made any application or "-f, ff' yw€x%. ^ ,-3'' \t 'tse£Ste> fi 8 •^^^.ai.'^ IY\ representation to the prescribed authority in this regard. So far as counting two alleged invalid votes in the no-confidence motion meeting is concerned, the fact remains that even if 02 votes are excluded, out of 13 members, including the petitioner, 03 voted against the motion, and 08 members voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. Thus, the criteria of passing of the motion by 2/3 majority, has been fulfilled.

6. 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 candidats, 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 petitoiner, 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.

7. This Court, in Ghanshyam Yadav v. Rameshwar Sahu & Others, 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.

8. In view of the.foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court, in exereise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which is legal, just and proper.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. '2007 (2;TBLJ 181 Kft \ s^' ^^ ^'^6