Gulab Bai Maitri vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Appellant filed a writ application since by a vote of no confidence, she was removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Thakurpali,

Janpad Panchayat, Dabhra. A meeting was convened on the motion of no confidence moved by 15 members of the Gram Panchayat on 31.01.2018,

after verification of the membership and signatures of the signatories by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). The meeting did take place on

31.01.2018 at the scheduled time and the motion of no confidence got carried by majority, since 12 out of 16 members present, voted in favour of the

motion of no confidence and 4 voted against the motion.

Against the decision of the august house, she preferred an application under Section 21(4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993

before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa. She levelled various allegations in the manner in which the vote of no confidence was carried including the way

the meeting itself was convened. However, the primary thrust of the argument was focused on the vote casted by one of the Panchayat member

namely Bhojkunwar Maitri. It was alleged that she was allowed help of a companion/assistant to cast her vote which violated the secrecy of the vote

and therefore, her vote should not be counted. If the objection in relation to her voting is sustained, the vote of no confidence fails.

Since such allegation was made against the said Panchayat member, the Collector allowed the said Panch-Bhojkunwar Maitri to file an affidavit

under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 giving her a chance to explain her conduct. The affidavit is available on record, however

the same is being read by the learned senior counsel representing the Appellant in a way which favours his line of argument. His contention is that in

absence of any rules, the Presiding Officer could not have allowed assistance to the said Panch in casting her vote and since it is an accepted position

that she was allowed assistance, the Collector committed an error by not interfering with the resolution taken in the vote of no confidence.

We have gone through the affidavit filed by Bhojkunwar Maitri herself before the Collector. She states in the affidavit that because of her age and

physical difficulty in movement as well as sight, she was provided assistance by her nephew in locomotion, but she also categorically states that she

casted the vote in favour of the motion by ticking the box by herself and that the companion i.e. the nephew had no role to play in the casting of the

vote by her.

After having heard learned senior counsel for the Appellant, learned counsel for the State and the private Respondents, in absence of any

unimpeachable evidence to show that the statement made in the affidavit filed by Bhojkunwar Maitri did not reflect the correct position, we have to go

by the evidence available on record and what better evidence it could be than the affidavit on behalf of the said Panch herself stating that the vote

was casted by her personally without any undue influence or assistance in the exercise of voting by her nephew.

If, in this background, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the decision, we are of the opinion that he has committed no wrong

because even in the appeal, nothing new has come which will belie the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that Bhojkunwar Maitri was

assisted by her nephew only till the ballot box and therefore, it was her decision and doing where nephew played no role.

The fact is that the Appellant has lost the confidence of the majority and the whole legal battle is to hang on to that post and position through

assistance from the Court and not the people's trust which alone can be the deciding factor in such a situation.

We also further record that we do not find any infirmity either from the stage of notice of no confidence drawn against the Appellant till passing of

the resolution.

The appeal therefore has no merit. It is dismissed.