Dismissed¶¶30

Manish Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Jan 2024WPC/124/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

No-confidence motion against Vice-President/Parshad, Nagar Panchayat Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh; notice dated 02.01.2024 by Collector-cum-prescribed authority fixing meeting for 12.01.2024; compliance with Section 43-A(2)(ii) and Section 43-A(2)(i), Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961; ten clear days notice requirement; notice Annexure P/1; Councillors' complaint; writ petition dismissed (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J., 17.01.2024).

What did the court decide?

The notice issued on 02.01.2024 fixing the no-confidence meeting for 12.01.2024 — the 10th day counted from the date of the notice — complied with Section 43-A(2)(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (ten clear days requirement); the petitioner's submission was misconceived and he filed no document to show the contrary. ¶¶29

Manish Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 02.01.2024 issued by the Collector-cum-prescribed authority, Raigarh, fixing the no-confidence motion against the petitioner (Vice-President, Nagar Panchayat, Kirodimal Nagar) for 12.01.2024, complied with Section 43-A(2)(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 — which requires despatch of notice specifying date, time and place ten clear days before the meeting — or whether the entire proceeding stood vitiated.

¶¶20

Court's answer

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

The first limb of Section 43-A(2) — that the no-confidence meeting be convened and presided over by the Collector or a nominated officer — was complied with, as the Collector, Raigarh exercised the power of the prescribed authority.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

Compliance with Section 43-A(2)(i) (requisition by not less than one-sixth of the elected Councillors) was not raised as an issue by any party, indicating no dispute on that point.obiter¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPC No. 124 of 2024 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur), decided 17.01.2024 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.: The petitioner, Vice-President/Parshad of Ward No. 8, Nagar Panchayat, Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh, challenged the notice dated 02.01.2024 issued by the Collector-cum-prescribed authority convening a no-confidence motion against him for 12.01.2024, contending that notice specifying date, time and place had not been despatched ten days before the meeting as required by Section 43-A(2)(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. Held: counting from the notice date 02.01.2024, the meeting date 12.01.2024 was the 10th day, so the prescribed authority complied with Section 43-A(2)(ii); convening/presiding by the Collector satisfied the first limb of Section 43-A(2); the requisition limb (Section 43-A(2)(i)) was undisputed; and the petitioner produced nothing to the contrary. Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 124 of 2024

¶4

Manish Sharma S/o Shri Mahesh Sharma, Aged About 38 Years Vice President/parshad Of Ward No. 8, R/o Ward No. 8 Nanhu Nagar, Kirodimal Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2. The Collector And Prescribed Officer, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Vimla Ajay Rai , Parshad Ward No. 5 R/o Ward No. 5 Shouki Nagar Kirodimal Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

4. Smt. Savita Amarnath, Parshad Ward No. 6 R/o Ward No. 7 Vijay Nagar, East Kirodimal Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

5. Nandkumar Yadav, Parshad Ward No. 7 R/o Ward No. 8 Nanhu Nagar Kirodimal Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

6. Smt. Premlata Sahu Parshad Ward No. 9 Nr/o Ward No. 9 Uccha Bhatti Road, Kirodimal Nagar District Raigarh Chhattisgarh(Complainant)

¶11

7. Amit Kumar Sidar, Parshad Ward No. 11 R/o Ward No. 11 Kokditarai East Kirodimal Nagar District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy A.G. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

17.01.2024

¶16

1 . The petitioner has challenged a notice issued for the motion of No-confidence dated 02.01.2024 by the Collector-cum-prescribed authority, Raigarh whereby the authority fixed the date for the motion of No-confidence on 12.01.2024 at 11:00 am in Assembly Hall of Nagar Panchayat, Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh.

¶17

2 . The facts of the present case are that a complaint was made by some Councillors against the petitioner, who is the Vice-President of Nagar Panchayat, Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh. Thereafter, cognizance was taken by the prescribed authority and after satisfaction, as contemplated under Section 43-A(2)(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 , the date of the No-confidence motion was fixed.

¶18

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notice of such a meeting

¶19

¶20

specifying date, time and place was not dispatched to the petitioner 10 days before the meeting, therefore, the entire proceeding got vitiated. He would further submit that a notice was issued on 02.01.2024 and the date of the meeting specified by the authority was 12.01.2024, therefore, the notice was issued in contravention of the provisions of Section 43-A(2) (ii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961.

¶21

4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that a notice was issued on 02.01.2024 and the date of the meeting was fixed for 12.01.2024 on the 10th clear day from the date of the notice, therefore, the provisions of Section 43-A(2) (ii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 have been complied with and there is no irregularity or illegality in the notice.

¶22

5 . I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents and the provisions of Section 43-A(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961.

¶23

6. Section 43-A(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 deals with the NoConfidence motion against the Vice President which reads as under:-

¶24

“(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a meeting of the Council shall be convened and presided over by the Collector or a Class-I Officer in case of a Municipal Council and a Class II Officer in case of Nagar Panchayat as nominated by him, in the following manner, namely:--

¶25

(i) the meeting shall be convened forthwith on a requisition signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council for the time being;

¶26

(ii) the notice of such a meeting specifying the date, time and place shall be despatched to the President and every Councillor ten clear days before the meeting;”

¶27

7 . From a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 43-A(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, it is crystal clear that the meeting for a No-confidence motion shall be convened and presided over by a Collector or a Class-I Officer in case of Municipal Council and a Class-II Officer in case of Nagar Panchayat. In the present case, the Collector, Raigarh has exercised the power of the prescribed authority, therefore, the first part of the provision has been complied with. Section 43-A(2)(i) says that the meeting shall be convened forthwith on a requisition signed by not less than one-sixth of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council for the

¶28

¶29

time being. In the present case, this issue has not been raised meaning thereby that there is no dispute in this regard. Section 43A(2)(ii) says a notice of such a meeting specifying the date, time and place shall be dispatched to the President and every Councilor ten clear days before the meeting. The notice was issued on 02.01.2024 and the date of the meeting was specified for 12.01.2024 i.e., on the 10th day from 02.01.2024. Further, the petitioner has not filed any document to show the contrary. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions and notice Annexure P/1 it is apparent that the prescribed authority has complied with provisions of Section 43-A(2)(ii) of the Act, 1961 and the submission made by the petitioner appears to be misconceived.

¶30

8 . Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶31

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶32

Ajinkya

Manish Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Saluja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sachin Dighraskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sharon Motwani Vs Municipal Corporation Raipur

Raghuveer Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Umakant Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Udaybhan Kushwaha Vs Municipal Corporation of Raipur