Single judge of Chhattisgar High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the initiation of no-confidence proceedings against a Sarpanch. The court held that recording satisfaction in writing is not mandatory; the authority need only satisfy itself without defects before proceeding.
The writ petition is dismissed as it is bereft of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE HON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) w.P. C N0-H410 of 2012 ghiEsaggééy %29
PETITIONER
.
’
.a
Purushottam son ofParasKondkera, aged about 37 years, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Koundkera, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.),
RESPONDEN'LS
State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan,Raipur (C.G.)
g
@
| 9. | Bhushan son of Chu | nu, | Koundkera, |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10. | Ulfi Bai wife of Meha | ttar | , Koundkera, |
| 11. | Vishambhar Ram Ram, Koundkera, |
son | of Mansha |
| 12. | Radha wife Somnat | h, K | oundkera, |
| 13. | Manoj Kumar so Koundkera, |
n of |
Ramadhar, |
| 14. | Dihu Ram Son Koundkera, |
of $ |
Shyam Lal, |
| 15. | Rohini Bai wife Koundkera, |
of | Nandkumar, |
| 16. | N.P. Tiwari son Koundkera, |
of | Premnath, |
| 17. | Madan Lal Son Koundkera, |
of | Sube Lal, |
| 18. | Tijiya wife of Ashru | , Kou | ndkera, |
| 19. | Sohadra Bai wife Koundkera, |
of C | hampeshwar, |
| 20. | Subhadra wife Koundkera, |
of | Maksudan, |
| 21. | Parvati wife Koundkera, |
of | Mehattar, |
| 22. | Somti Bai wife Koundkera, |
of | Nakechheda, |
| 23. | Pushpa wife of Bal | ram, | Koundkera, |
| 24. | Rajeshwari wife Koundkera, |
of | Purshottam, |
C5?
No. 5 to 24 are panchas, Gram Panchayat Koundkera, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.),
M..OF'THE
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226M..OF'THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR )00 WRIT PETITION (Ct NO. 1420 OF 2012
PETITIONER Purushcttam
Versus
RESPONDENTS
(WritPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india)
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Present :- Shri R.Pradhan, Advocate forthe petitioners. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. Shri P.P.Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No. 5 to 15 and 17 to 24. Shri Roop Naik, Advocatefor the respondent No. 16.
a ORDER (Passed on this 01“ day of November, 2012)
Heard teamed counseifor the parties.
Challenge in this petition is to the proceedings dated 27.07.2012 to 30.07.2012 (Annexure — P/1) on the ground that the provisions of the subrule (3)of Rule 3 of The Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tafha UP Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zi/a Panchayat Ke President“theTatha Vice—President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (forshon‘ Rules, 1994’) has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subrule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, the prescribed authority after receiving notice for no confidence motion should satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice. ln the case on hand, it is evident from proceedings dated 30.07.2012 that the prescribed authority has not satisfied himself before issuing a notice for holding no—confldence motion on 09.08.2012 and appointed the officer for conduct of the no-conhdence motion. Learned counsel further submits that the prescribed authority ought to have made enquiry from the relevant officers and thereafter recording ‘of satisfaction, as being mandatory, has to be done which has not been done in'this case, thus the entire case is bad in law. Learned counsel relies on a decision of this Court in Smt. Chandn'ka Devi Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others delivered on‘10.05.2012 wherein the Court had held that“the SDO is under obligation to satisfy himself about the contents and admissibility of the notice and he could not have delegated the said exercise to be conducted by the C.E. O. of Janpad Panchayaf’.
2
W)
Learned counsel appearing for other side submits that the question of satisfaction cannot be reflected only when it is recorded in terms as this is not the requirement of provisions of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. The satisfaction himself is presumed when notice is issued for the purposeofhoidingno—confidencemotionunlesscontraryis proved. The contention of the Iearned counsel of the petitioner that since the prescribed authority has observed in the order dated 27.07.2012 there should be averment with regard to a number of Panchas and signature himself to indicate the fact that the prescribed authority had in mind to have a detailed enquiry. This submission is frivolous and it does not make out a case that there was an error in the notice. In the instant case, challenge is contined to the satisfaction of the S.D.O. i.e. prescribed authority under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. On perusal of the documents and the proceedings impugned herein, nothing has been pointed out to establish that the prescribed authority has not satisfied himself before proceeding further to hold meeting for noconfrdence motion. It is not the requirement of Iaw that the prescribed authority must record satisfaction in writing. The requirement is that prescribedauthorityshallsatisfyabouttheadmissibilityofthenotice.Unless it is pointed out that there were certain defects which could not satisfy the prescribedauthorityandstillthe prescribedauthorityhassatisfiedhimself, it cannot be held that the SDO has not satisfied himself. Submission of the petitioner that since he has not recorded the proceeding is bad and unsustainable in law. Even othenNise, no other material has been produced to indicate that the materials before him were such as not to satisfy the prescribedauthorityinaccordancewithlaw. Thus, this petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4N,“ , W
SdlSATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings initiated to hold a no-confidence motion were bad in law since the prescribed authority did not explicitly record its satisfaction in writing before proceeding.
Whether it is mandatory for the prescribed authority to record satisfaction in writing under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Chandnaga Devi Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & othersReferred¶31
Smt. Chandn'ka Devi Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Purushottam son of ParasKondkera
State of Chhattisgarh
Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
Shri T.R. Maheshwari
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat
Satish K. Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
