Smt. Savitri Rai Sagar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 591 of 2018 1.

Smt. Savitri Rai Sagar W/o Gayatri Prasad Aged About 37 Years (Panch) Ward No. 02 Gram Panchayat, Kachanda 2.

Anoop Kumar Kashyap S/o Krishno Negi Aged About 45 Years (Panch) Ward No. 06 Gram Panchayat Kachanda 3.

Raju Raisagar S/o Ramanuj Aged About 43 Years (Panch) Ward No. 13 Gram Panchayat Kachanda 4.

Umalal Sahu S/o Guharam Aged About 60 Years (Panch) Ward No. 17 Gram Panchayat Kachanda 5.

Itwari Yadav S/o Firha Ram Aged About 45 Years (Panch) Ward No. 03 Gram Panchayat Kachanda 6.

Radhe Yadav S/o Puru Yadav Aged About 50 Years (Panch) Ward No. 16 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

7.

Smt. Rameshwari W/o Ramkumar Kashyap Aged About 36 Years (Panch) Ward No. 10 Gram Panchayat Kachanda 8.

Smt. Bhagwati Kashyap W/o Santoshi Kashyap Aged About 35 Years (Panch) Ward No. 09 Gram Panchayat Kachanda. 9.

Smt. Ishwari Khandekar W/o Ramgilass Aged About 36 Years (Panch) Ward No. 14 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

10.

Arjun Lal S/o Teturam Aged About 52 Years (Panch) Ward No. 04 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

11.

Badrika Bai Sahu W/o Geeta Prasad Aged About 36 Years (Panch) Ward No. 08 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

All petitioners No.1 to 11 R/o Kachanda Tehsil Navagarh District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2.

Collector, Janjgir District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.

3.

Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4.

Sub-Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.

5.

Tahsildar, Navagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6.

Chief Executive Officer, Navagarh, Janpad Panchayat, DistrictJanjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 7.

Smt. Karuna Sarve W/o Late Shri Dinesh Chandra Sarve Village- Kachanda Tehsil- Navagarh, District- JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh. 8.

Birju Diwakar S/o Rambhu Diwakar (Panch) Ward No. 07 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

9.

Samaru Tandon S/o Sotiram (Panch) Ward No. 15 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

10.

Smt. Javabai Kashyap W/o Santosh Kashyap (Panch) Ward No. 19 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

11.

Smt. Chandrakanta Kashyap W/o Suresh (Panch) Ward No. 11 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

12.

Smt. Meenu Bai Manikpuri W/o Suresh Das (Panch) Ward No. 05 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

13.

Rajaram Sahu S/o Mukru Sahu (Panch) Ward No. 03 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

14.

Smt. Narmada Rai Sagar W/o Meghnath (Panch) Ward No. 12 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

15.

Smt. Rajkumari W/o Vijay Dhiwar (Panch) Ward No. 18 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

16.

Smt. Kanta Yadav W/o Dharmendra (Panch) Ward No. 20 Gram Panchayat Kachanda.

All respondents from 8 to 16 are from Village- Kachanda Tehsil Navagarh District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

For Petitioners Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Adv.

For Respondent No.7 Shri Ramesh Kumar Nayak, Advocate For Respondent No.

Shri J.N. Nande, Advocate 8,9,10,12,13,15 & 16 For Respondent No.11 Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate Order On Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

27/11/2018 1.

The matter pertains to no confidence motion against the respondent No.7 Smt. Karuna Sarve, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kachanda, Tahsil Nawagarh, District JanjgirChampa. 2.

On the date of consideration of no confidence motion 16 members were present out of whom 15 have voted in favour of motion and one against the motion. Thus, the resolution was passed by majority of not less than 3/4th of Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than 2/3rd of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the motion of no confidence was carried and the Sarpanch was unseated from the office.

3.

The Sarpanch moved an application under Section 21 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') on the ground, inter alia, that the proceeding

was fixed for 12.00 noon, but had actually happened after two hours; the Sarpanch was not allowed to speak; and thirdly 5 panchas were, in fact, not present when the meeting again convened after two hours.

4.

The Collector has dealt with all the issues and having referred to the language of the resolution it has concluded that all the members present at the time of meeting of no confidence motion were allowed to speak, therefore, it cannot be said that the Sarpanch was not allowed to speak. Similarly the allegation that the meeting, in fact, began after two hours from the scheduled time has been negatived on the ground that the resolution written by the Presiding Officer would clearly state that the meeting had began at the time and place mentioned in the notice.

5.

Challenging the order passed by the Collector, the Sarpanch moved before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which has allowed the revision application holding that the meeting begin at 2.00 pm; the voting took place by show off hands and not through ballots; and because of the delayed commencement of the meeting 5 panchas could not participate. 6.

A perusal of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 93-2017 would clearly reflect that the meeting started at the scheduled place and time. It also records that total 16 members

of the Panchayat were present and all were allowed to speak and thereafter, the voting took place by ballots and not by show off hands.

7.

Referring to the decision rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Kandhilal Patel and Others v State of M.P. and Others1, it is argued that when the fact as to time and place when the meeting began was disputed by the Sarpanch and other Panchas, who could not participate in the meeting the Collector should have directed for an enquiry by recording evidence of the parties.

8.

The present is a case where the Sarpanch or the other absent panchas have not raised any protest at the time when the meeting took place. It remained open for the parties to have raised objection that since the meeting is not taking place at the time mentioned in the notice it should be called off treating the motion of no confidence to have failed. Any subsequent assertion of a fact, which is not recorded or for which there is no hint in the resolution cannot be a ground for directing an enquiry as if the Collector under Section 21 (4) is holding a civil trial.

9.

Referring to Roopnarayan Khunte v State of Chhattisgarh & Others2, it is argued that the Sarpanch having not been allowed AIR 1999 Madhya Pradesh 137 WPC 2247 of 2016 (decided on 17-2-2017)

to speak at the time of consideration of motion of no confidence his valuable legal right is violated, which vitiates the entire process of consideration of no confidence motion. 10.

In the case at hand, the resolution would clearly record that all the members were allowed to speak. If the Sarpanch did not avail the opportunity he cannot later on complain that he was not allowed to speak. In para 11 of Roopnarayan Khunte (supra) this Court has observed that the resolution has not recorded that the motion was discussed in presence of all whereas in the present resolution it is recorded that the members were called to speak. Thus, the basic facts on which this Court has passed order in Roopnarayan Khunte (supra) are different. 11.

Similarly reliance on Narottam Verma v State of Chhattisgarh and Others3 is also of no assistance to the petitioner.

12.

In the case at hand, the resolution clearly records that the meeting began at the scheduled time and place. Moreover, the Sarpanch has not stated before the Court as to what prejudice has been caused to him if any particular provision has not been followed.

13.

In a matter where the outgoing Sarpanch has lost the confidence of the house, it is necessary for him to prove the prejudice 2008 (4) MPHT 56 (CG)

caused to him, which has resulted in vitiation of the entire process as has been recorded by the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Smt. Bhulin Dewangan v State Of M.P. And Ors.4 The no confidence motion having been passed by the required majority, the Commissioner has wrongly interfered with the order passed by the Collector. 14.

In the result, the impugned order dated 5-2-2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the motion of no confidence carried against the Sarpanch on 9-3-2017 is sustained and the respondent No.7/Smt. Karuna Sarve, Sarpanch, shall cease to hold the office forthwith.

15.

As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Gowri 2000 (2) JLJ 253 : 2000 (4) MPHT 69 : 2001 (2) MPLJ 372