Dismissed

Smt. Sushma Dadu Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jan 2024WPC/288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged no-confidence proceedings against the President of Nagar Panchayat, Sakti, contending Section 43-A covered only the Vice-President and that the Collector's procedure was illegal. The court held the section, as amended in 2019, covers the President, found the requisition and procedure valid, distinguished P. Pramila on sub-delegation, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Sushma Dadu Jaiswal Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 288 of 2024

¶4

Smt. Sushma Dadu Jaiswal W/o Shri Trilok Chand @ Dadu Jaiswal Aged About 60 Years President, Nagar Panchayat, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.).

¶8

2. The Collector And Prescribed Authority Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶9

3. The Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶10

4. The Chief Municipal OfÏcer Nagar Palika Parishad, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶11

5. Smt. Rajni Sanjay Ram Chandra Councilor, Ward No. 6, Nagar Panchayat, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶12

6. Gajendra Yadav Councilor, Ward No. 9, Nagar Panchayat, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶13

7. Smt. Vijay Lakhan Dewangan Councilor, Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶14

8. Dhannanjay Namdeo Councilor, Ward No. 16, Nagar Panchayat, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶15

9. Smt. Sarla Govinda Nirala Councilor, Ward No. 18, Nagar Panchayat, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioner	: Mr. K. K. Pandey, Advocate through video
	conferencing
For Res. Nos. 1 to 3/State	: Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General

¶19

¶20

For Respondent No. 5

¶21

: Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate

¶22

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶23

23.01.2024

¶24

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by the Collector, District Sakti dated 12.01.2024 for the motion of noconfidence against the petitioner, who is the President, Nagar Panchayat, Sakti.

¶25

Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that the election of Nagar Panchayat, Sakti was held in January 2019 and 18 councillors were elected in the election. The petitioner was elected as the President of Nagar Panchayat, Sakti by 18 councillors on 06.01.2020. On 12.01.2024, 5 councillors, out of a total of 18 councillors sent a requisition to the Collector under Section 43A of the CG Municipalities Act, 1961 (henceforth “the Act, 1961”) to bring the motion of no-confidence against the President, Nagar Panchayat, Sakti imputing certain allegations. The Collector took cognizance of the matter on 12.01.2024 and sent the requisition to the Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Sakti for verification of signatures. Thereafter, the Collector specified the date, time and place for the no-confidence motion and appointed the SubDivisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Sakti to preside over the meeting. Notices were sent to the petitioner and other members of Nagar Panchayat, Sakti on the same date. The petitioner, who is the President of Nagar Panchayat, Sakti has challenged the order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Collector, District Sakti.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Section 43-A of the Act, 1961 deals with the no-confidence motion against the VicePresident. He would further submit that a no-confidence motion cannot be brought against the petitioner, as in the provision itself only the term ‘Vice

¶27

¶28

President’ is mentioned. He would also submit that the Collector on 12.01.2024, when the requisition was placed before him, sent the requisition for verification of signatures to the Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Sakti, such exercise is contrary to the provisions contained under Section 43-A of the Act, 1961. He would further argue that the Collector appointed the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) to preside over the meeting of no-confidence motion, whereas, the Collector himself is empowered to exercise such power, therefore also the entire proceeding got vitiated. He would further contend that an undated complaint was made to the Collector, Sakti by the councillors and the complaint is not supported with an afÏdavit, and therefore also the Collector ought not to have taken cognizance of such complaint. He would next contend that the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint was not enquired into by the Collector. He would further argue that the Collector, Sakti without satisfying himself according to the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1961 passed the order to convene the meeting of no-confidence, therefore, the entire proceeding initiated by the Collector is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be set aside.

¶29

On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would submit that Section 43-A of the Act, 1961 was amended in the year 2019 and the word “Vice President” was inserted. They would further submit that a noconfidence motion can be brought against the President as well as the Vice president. They would also submit that the requisition was made according to provisions of Section 43-(2)(i) of the Act, 1961 and there is no requirement for an afÏdavit in support of such requisition. They would further contend that the requisition was given to the Collector by the requisite numbers of elected councillors i.e. more than 1/6th; therefore, the requisition was valid. It is further stated that the Collector may appoint any Class-I OfÏcer to preside over the meeting and Class-II OfÏcer in the case of Nagar Panchayat. In the

¶30

¶31

present case, the Collector has appointed the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), who is a Class II OfÏcer and a competent person to preside over the meeting of the no-confidence motion. It is also submitted that notices were issued to the President, Vice-President and other councillors and a reply was also filed by the petitioner, therefore, it is not a case where sufÏcient opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner and the entire exercise has been done by the Collector, Sakti strictly in accordance with the law. The learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that there is no scheme in the Act to enquire into the allegations levelled by the councillors. They placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Satya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2022 SCC Online Chh 1432.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

From the perusal of the documents it appears that a requisition was given by 5 councillors out of 18 councillors to the Collector, Sakti to bring a noconfidence motion against the petitioner. Section 43-A of the Act, 1961 deals with a no-confidence motion against the President and Vice-President. The word “President” has been inserted in this Section by way of an amendment in the year 2019, therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is misconceived. With regard to the requirements of Section 43A of the Act of 1961, the requisition was made to the Collector by the 1/6th members of Nagar Panchayat; the Collector sent the requisition for verification of signatures to the Chief Municipal OfÏcer; the Collector/prescribed authority specified date, time and place of meeting and granted 10 clear days from the date of dispatch of notice till the date of holding the meeting; and there is no requirement under Section 43-A of the Act, 1961 to enquire into the allegations made in the requisition.

¶34

¶35

In the matter of Satya Gupta (Supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench in paragraph 26 held as under:-

¶36

“26 However, the argument of Mr. Singh that the Collector was required to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made in the requisition is without any substance. No power is vested on the Collector to examine the allegations, if any, made in the requisition notice and if a notice expressing no-confidence is signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of elected Councilors constituting the Council, he has no option but to convene a meeting forthwith.”

¶37

Mr Pandey, learned counsel of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Pramila and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in 2015 AIR SCW

¶38

3533 wherein it has been held that “Delegatus non-protest delegare” meaning thereby authority cannot sub-delegate his power. It reads thus:-

¶39

“ 8. Section 43 of the Air Act has already been extracted hereinabove. It is apparent therefrom, that Courts would take cognizance of complaints filed by the Board, or any ofÏcer authorised by the Board, in that behalf. The notification/resolution dated 29.3.1989 indicates, that the ofÏcer authorised was the Chairman of the Board. The Board could delegate the above power to the Chairman of the Board, because Section 43(1) of the Air Act, authorised the Board to do so. In that view of the matter, either the Board or the Chairman of the Board could have filed the complaints in terms of the mandate contained in Section 43(1) of the Air Act. The power to file the complaint could not be exercised by any other authority/ofÏcer. Under the principle of 'delegatus not potest delegare', the delegatee (the Chairman of the Board) could not have further delegated the authority vested in him, except by a clear mandate of law. Section 43 of the Air Act vested the authority, to file complaints with the Board. Section 43 aforementioned, also authorised the Board to delegate the above authority to any "ofÏcer authorised in this behalf by it". The "ofÏcer authorised in this behalf" was not authorised by the provisions of Section 43 of the Air Act, or by any other provision thereof, to further delegate, the authority to file complaints. The Chairman of the Board, therefore, had no authority to delegate the power to file complaints, to any other authority, for taking cognizance of offences under the Air Act. It is apparent, that the determination to initiate action against the appellants, and other similarly placed persons, against whom action was proposed to be taken, by the Chairman of the Board, vide his order dated 4.4.2006, was not in consonance with law. Annexure P-11, appended to Criminal Appeal No. 152/2012 reveals, that the complaint was filed, and the proceedings were initiated before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class-II, Karwar, by the Regional OfÏcer(Deputy Environmental OfÏcer) Sri Gopalakrishna B. Sanatangi, in his capacity as a complainant. The Regional

¶40

¶41

OfÏcer(Deputy Environmental OfÏcer) Sri Gopalakrishna B. Sanatangi, had no jurisdiction to prefer such complaints. Accordingly, we are of the view, that the afore- stated complaints dated 28.04.2006 are liable to be set aside, on the instant technical ground itself. Ordered accordingly.

¶42

P. Pramila (supra) was a matter of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short, “the Act, 1981”). According to Section 43 of the Act, 1981 the authorized ofÏcer to file a complaint is the Chairman of the Board whereas in that matter some other ofÏcer was authorized to file a complaint, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a statute has given the power to a particular authority, that power/authority cannot be subdelegated.

¶43

In the instant case, the Collector never delegated his power provided under Section 43-A of the Act, 1961. There is a provision to appoint a Presiding OfÏcer to preside over a 'No Confidence Motion' and the Collector is absolutely justified in exercising his power, therefore, the judgment relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶44

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶47

amita

Smt. Sushma Dadu Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Sushma Dadu Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.M. Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Someshwar Kosariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Legend Distilieries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagsaay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Son Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh