Allowed

Nandkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Nov 2022WPC/642/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Additional Commissioner's order upholding a Sarpanch's removal via a no confidence motion. The Court found the Commissioner's order arbitrary due to lack of legal reasoning and ordered a fresh election.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.01.2022 of the Additional Commissioner is set aside and the respondents are directed to carry out a fresh election for the post of Sarpanch.

Nandkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Election Law | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP(C) No.642 of 2022

¶5

Nandkumar, S/o Shri Kanwar Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o GramBijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil - Lormi District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Tijan Jaiswal, W/o Shri Moolchand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o GramBijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Smt. Manmati, W/o Shri Netram Jaiswal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Gram- Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Smt. Rukhmani, W/o Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gram - Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Smt. Indrani Maravi, W/o Shri Santosh Maravi, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gram- Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil – Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Smt. Rina Dhruv, W/o Shri Narayan Dhruv, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gram- Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Smt. Dhaneshwari Jaiswal, W/o Shri Sonu Jaiswal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Gram- Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil - Lormi District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Smt. Suruj Bai, W/o Shri Ashok Dhruv, Aged About 52 Years ,R/o Gram- Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Shri Surendra Jaiswal, S/o Shri Ram Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gram- Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

10.Shri Parmanand, S/o Shri Majru Jaiswal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Gram- Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

11.Ashok Jaiswal, S/o Shri Gulal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o GramBijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

Collector, Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

Sub Divisional Ofcer, Lormi District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶23

Nayab Tahsildar - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶24

Smt. Nirmala Kalesh Jaiswal, W/o Shri Kalesh Jaiswal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gram- Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

Smt. Tijan, W/o Dinesh Jaiswal, Panch of Gram- Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil - Lormi District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

Kaushalya, W/o Shri Dev Kumar Jaiswal, Panch of Bijrakapakala (Wrongly Mention Bijrakapa) Tahsil - Lormi District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶27

---- Respondents

¶28

For Petitioners	: Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.
For State	: Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, P.L.
For Respondent No.6	: Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶30

Order on Board

¶31

02/11/2022

¶32

With the consent of Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage itself.

¶33

This petition has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District - Bilaspur, (C.G.) in

¶34

¶35

Panchayat Case No.03A-89/2021-22/ whereby the Commissioner has set aside the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Collector, District – Mungeli (C.G.) and order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the SubDivisional Ofcer, Lormi, (C.G.).

¶36

Facts of the case are that, respondent No.6 is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat – Bijrakapakala, Tehsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, (C.G.). The no confidence motion was moved against her by 11 members of the Panchayat before the Prescribed Ofcer i.e. SubDivisional Ofcer, Lormi (respondent No.4) on 04.09.2021 and the Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Lormi, after subjective satisfaction recorded the statement on oath of all 11 members then on 10.09.2021 sent a notice of the motion of no confidence by directing respondent No.5 – Nayab Tehsildar, Lormi and appointed the Nayab Tehsildar as Prescribed Ofcer for the above meeting to consider the no confidence motion against respondent No.6. The notices were served to the petitioners as well as other Panchas and respondent No.6 i.e. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat – Bijrakapakala. The meeting for no confidence motion was convened on 19.09.2021 in which all the 14 members of Gram Panchayat – Bijrakapakala including respondent No.6 i.e. Sarpanch participated and the Presiding Ofcer declared that the motion of no confidence has been carried out with the majority of 11 members in favour and 3 members in against out of total 14 members of Gram Panchayat. A copy of resolution/prativedan dated 19.09.2021 was sent to the SubDivisional Ofcer, Lormi and after receiving of resolution/prativedan, the Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Lormi immediately removed respondent

¶37

¶38

No.6 from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat – Bijrakapakala and directed the Chief Executive Ofcer, Janpad Panchayat – Lormi to appoint substituted Sarpanch at the Gram Panchayat – Bijrakapakala. A reference was filed by respondent No.6 against the resolution of no confidence motion and order of Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Lormi before respondent No.3 – Collector, District - Mungeli, (C.G.). under sub-section 4 of Section 21 of the Panchayat Rajya Act, 1993 which was dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2021 i.e. Annexure P-2. Thereafter, respondent No.6 filed a revision petition against the said order before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District - Bilaspur. Vide order dated 22.01.2022, the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur allowed the revision petition and set-aside the resolution of no confidence motion, order of removal of respondent No.6 and also set-aside the order passed by the Collector – Mungeli in reference matter. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶39

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.6 has not only signed the notice of no confidence motion but she has also undisputedly participated in the no confidence motion without raising any objection or pointing out any prejudice caused to her in convening the meeting. The order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur is arbitrary. The learned Additional Commissioner acted with material irregularities and without finding any material against the motion of no confidence and without finding any prejudice caused to respondent No.6, passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable.

¶40

¶41

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 opposes the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners. He submits that without complying with the provisions of Section 21 of The Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (in short ‘the Act, 1993’) respondent No.4 - Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Lormi directly fixed the date of meeting of no confidence motion on 04.09.2021 itself and also appointed the Presiding Ofcer on 04.09.2021 itself without complying with Section 21(3) of the Act, 1993, neither complied with Rule 3(3) of The Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Rule, 1994 (in short ‘ the Rule, 1994’). He further submits that on the date of no confidence motion i.e. on 19.09.2021, respondent No.6 was not allowed to speak and exercise her right as enumerated in Section 21(2) of the Act, 1993 read with Section 5(4) of the Rule, 1994. Therefore, learned Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur has rightly setaside the order passed by respondent No.3 – Collector, District - Mungeli and respondent No.4 - Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Lormi.

¶42

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the records of Court below. On perusal of record, it appears that on 04.09.2021, no confidence motion was proposed against respondent No.6 by 11 members of the Gram Panchayat - Bijrakapakala. The order-sheet dated 04.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) reveals that all the 11 members of the Panchayat who moved the motion, signed the ordersheets and also made their statements before the Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Lormi. Order-sheet dated 04.09.2021 also reeects that

¶43

¶44

meeting for no confidence motion was fixed by the Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Lormi on 19.09.2021 and notices were issued. On perusal of record, it also appears that notices were issued on 10.09.2021 and served to the noticee including respondent No.6 as per Annexure P- 5. It is also reeected that on 19.09.2021 i.e. at the time of discussion of no confidence motion, respondent No.6 was also present and she signed the proceedings, therefore, the arguments advanced by Counsel for the respondent No.6 that respondent No.6 was not allowed to speak, is not sustainable. The result of no confidence motion shows that respondent No.6 has lost miserably inasmuch as the 11 out of 14 Panchas voted in favour of the motion and only 3 voted against the motion. It shows that respondent No.6 has admittedly lost confidence of the Panchas and in the light of judgment passed by the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Bhulin Dewangan V. State of M.P. & Others, 2000 (4) MPST 69 and the judgment passed by this Court in case of Sahasram Jangde and Others V. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, 2013 (4) CGLJ 526, it would not be in the public interest to permit respondent No.6 to continue on the post of Sarpanch.

¶45

The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur vide impugned order dated 22.01.2022, has passed the order in an arbitrary manner and without giving any legal reason set-aside the order passed by respondent No.3 – Collector, Mungeli, (C.G.) and respondent No.4 - Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Lormi, which is not sustainable.

¶46

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

¶47

¶48

22.01.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division,

¶49

District – Bilaspur, (C.G.) is set-aside.

¶50

The respondent authorities are directed to carry out fresh election for the post of Sarpanch as early as possible in accordance with relevant law/rules.

¶51

10.With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶54

Prakash

Nandkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hirendra Patel, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gayatri Bai Gendle Vs Rubin Kumar Gendle

Smt. Rajmani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandhaya Jangde Vs Loknath Jangde

Usha Kumar Vs Smt. Pushpa Bai

Smt. Lalita Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh