Petitioner Sarpanch challenged rejection of her removal application by Collector/Commissioner. Court held strict compliance of signature verification rules is waived absent fraud or prejudice. Petition dismissed.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 143 of 2019
---- Petitioner
Versus
2
Respondent No.7 to 24 R/o Village Mainpurkhurd, Tahsil Mainpur, District Gariyaband
---- Respondent
For Petitioner Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Rajesh R. Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Order On Board By
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
15/1/2019
3
4
the time of voting which vitiated the entire proceedings. It is important to bear in mind that either before or after passing of the motion of no confidence, no Panchas, who were signatory to the motion of no confidence, have come forward to allege that his/her signature on the motion of no confidence was obtained by fraud or the same was not signed by him/her.
5
fulfillment of mandatory requirement, the authority empowered to take a decision may refuse to nullify the action on the ground that no substantial prejudice had been caused to the party affected or to any other party which would have any other substantial interest in the proceeding. It is also observed that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has also a discretion not to interfere even though a mandatory requirement of law has not been strictly complied with as thereby no serious prejudice or failure of justice has been caused.
(Prashant Kumar Mishra)
Judge
Shyna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a motion of no confidence motion against a Sarpanch should be invalidated merely because the Presiding Authority delegated the verification of signatures to other officers.
Whether the Technical non-compliance of a mandatory requirement warrants quashing when no substantial prejudice is shown by the ousted officeholder.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Satya Prakashi Parsadia Vs. State of M.P. and othersDistinguished¶44
Smt. Satya Prakashi Parsadia Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2008 (3) MPHT 264
Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of MP and othersRelied on¶48
Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of MP and others, 2001 (2) MPLJ 372
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Sarita Sen
State Of Chhattisgarh
The Additional Commissioner Raipur Division
Collector Gariyaband
Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mainpur
The Tahsildar Mainpur
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
