AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Judgment Delivered On :20.08.2026.
Smt. Neelima Sahu W/o. Shri Shiva Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o. House No. 29, Ward No. 03, Somani, Tahsil And Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat Department Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Prescribed Officer Rajnandgaon, Distt. -Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
4 - Nayab Tahsildar Rajnandgaon / Presiding Officer Tahsil - Rajnandgaon, Distt. -Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) :Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For State/respondent :Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy AG. For Intervenor-Santosh :Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate.
Yadav
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order
This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 10.08.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh by which meeting of no confidence motion against the petitioner/Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Somni has been directed to be convened on 20.08.2026.
Petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Somni, Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon. The other Up-Sarpanchs and Panchs were having a grudge against the petitioner and in connivance, they moved first application dated 11.03.2026 before Respondent No.2 of no confidence against the petitioner under Rule 3 (1) of The Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastava ) Niyam, 1994. In pursuance of the said application dated 11.3.2026, a notice dated 18.03.2026 was issued to the petitioner who challenged the same before this Court in WPC No.1308 of 2026. This Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 allowed the said petition to the extent of quashing the notice dated 18.03.2026 as there was non compliance of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994. The Court also reserved a liberty in favour of the authorities that the said order dated 25.03.2026 will not come into way for further consideration of any No-Confidence Motion, which is done in accordance with Rules, 1994. Thereafter again proceedings for no confidence motion has been initiated against the petitioner for which meeting is going to be held on 20.08.2026 which is contrary to Section 21 (3) (iii) of the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Hence this Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that second no confidence motion within one year of initiation of first one is not in accordance with law as per Section 21 (3) (iii) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. He submits that earlier proceedings of first no confidence motion dated 18.03.2026 was quashed by this Court and without there being completion of 1 year, second no confidence motion dated 20.08.2026 is not in accordance with law. Further, the SDO has not recorded it due satisfaction as envisaged under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 and in the absence of same, he has directed for convening the meeting of no confidence against the petitioner which is per se illegal. Unless and until, the SDO records its satisfaction upon receiving resolution by members of the concerned Gram Panchayat, he cannot direct for convening a meeting of no confidence against the Sarpanch. For this, he has placed reliance in the order dated 02.02.2022 passed by this Court in WPC No.596/2022.
On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that proceedings of no confidence motion dated 20.08.2026 is in accordance with law. He submits that the SDO has duly recorded its satisfaction which is evident from order dated 10.08.2026 passed by the SDO and the same is also evident from the documents annexed with the petition. He submits that the SDO directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon to verify the proposal of no confidence motion as brought by members of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter vide memorandum dated 10.08.2026, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon has submitted its report and stated that for the no confidence motion against the petitioner, one Up-Sarpanch and fifteen Panchs have appended their signature in the resolution. Further, the submission of counsel for the petitioner that no confidence motion is being convened twice within one year as per Section 21 (3) (iii), is baseless. He submits that when the first no confidence motion was to be held and notice dated 18.03.2026 was issued to the petitioner, the same was quashed by this Court and no confidence motion was not carried out. As such, the count of petitioner that first no confidence motion has already been carried out is erroneous. This Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 had categorically observed that quashment of notice dated 18.03.2026 will not come in the way of further consideration of any No-confidence motion, if done in accordance with Rules, 1994. Hence, both grounds raised by the petitioner that SDO has not recorded its due satisfaction and no confidence motion cannot be held twice is baseless and this writ petition being bereft of merits is liable to be dismissed.
Though the petitioner in this petition has not arrayed Up-Sarpanch and other panchs who have passed the resolution of no confidence motion as party, one elected panch namely Santosh Yadav has filed an application for intervention. The said applicant is one of the Panchs who have moved proposal of no confidence against the petitioner, as such, this Court deems fit to allow the intervention application. Accordingly, application for intervention of Santosh Yadav is allowed and his counsel is allowed to argue the matter.
Shri Pankaj Singh, counsel for the Intervenor- Santosh Yadav submits that the satisfaction contemplated by Rule 3(3) is confined to the admissibility of the notice with reference to Sections 21(3), 28(3) and 35(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. In the present case, the prescribed authority sought the requisite particulars from the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon on 07.08.2026, received the same on 10.08.2026, and only thereafter drew the proceedings convening the meeting for 20.08.2026; within fifteen days of receipt and upon more than seven clear days' notice. Once satisfaction is recorded and no prejudice pleaded, the same cannot be assailed being illegal. Hence the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. He further submits that the one-year embargo under Section 21(3)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 operates only where a motion of no-confidence, upon consideration, is rejected in the meeting. The earlier notice dated 18.03.2026 never reached consideration as this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 25.03.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 1308 of 2026, quashed it solely for want of seven clear days' notice under Rule 3(3) of the Niyam, 1994, and paragraph 5 thereof expressly reserved liberty for "further consideration of any No-Confidence Motion, which is done in accordance with the Rules, 1994. He submits that “A motion lapsing on such technical ground, without being put to vote, is no "rejection", and the embargo is not attracted. {See: Smt. Sunita Bai Chaudhary v. Omkar Singh, W.P. No. 22731/2017, decided on 01.03.2018 (High Court of M.P.)]. Having herself obtained the said order, the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate. Moreover, the notice dated 05.08.2026 (Annexure A/1 to the intervention application) bears the seal of the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Rajnandgaon with endorsement dated 05.08.2026; due presentation and receipt stand established from the record itself.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.
The first and foremost question for consideration before this Court is whether there is substance in the submission of the petitioner that no confidence motion cannot be held twice within one year as he alleges that the same is provided under Section 21 (3) (iii) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 ?
Section 21 (3) (iii) reads as under:-
No-confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. (3) No-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of,-
one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.
From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that once the first no confidence motion has been rejected, the second no confidence motion cannot lie within one year thereon. However, the first no confidence motion has to be “rejected” to attract the embargo of one year.
In the present case, the petitioner moved before this court against the notice dated 18.03.2026 of first no confidence motion stating it to be in utter violation of Rule 3 of Rules, 1994 which stipulates seven days clear notice to be given before the meeting is held and this Court quashed notice dated 18.03.2026 as the same being in violation of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994, as such, it cannot be said that the first notice dated 18.03.2026 culminated into rejection of no confidence motion as the same was quashed by this Court midway.
The said view has already been arrived at by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Smt. Sunita Bai Chaudhary vs. Omkar Singh & others in WP No.22731 of 2017 in paragraph 9, which reads as under:-
In the instant case, as noticed, the first no confidence motion was admittedly filed before completion of two and half years from the date on which Sarpanch entered her office. Thus, the first no confidence motion was not entertainable. The first no confidence motion was, therefore, not rejected. Clause (iii) of Sub-section 3 of Section 21 clearly provides that second motion from the date on which previous motion of non-confidence was rejected, shall not lie. The expression "from the date ......... no confidence was rejected" is very important. In the present case, previous motion of no confidence was never rejected. It appears that the purpose behind putting an embargo/time limit of six months from presenting another motion of no confidence is to give opportunity to the Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch to improve their performance in order to gain confidence of the Panchas. A conjoint reading of various clauses of Section 21 makes it abundantly clear that first motion of no confidence cannot be initiated before completion of two and half years from the date the Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch entered their respective office. The no confidence motion cannot be initiated within six months preceding the date on which term of office of Sarpanch/Up- Sarpanch is going to expire.
Likewise, in the matter of Kandhilal Patel and Others vs. State of M.P. and Others, reported in {1999 (2) JLJ 109}, Justice R.S. Garg, as he then was held in paragraph No.12 & 13, as under:-
“12.The second question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner was unjustified in holding that as the first resolution was rejected by the Addl. Collector holding that it was illegally passed by show of hands, therefore, the second meeting for consideration of the motion was contrary to law. Learned counsel submits that the first motion was not rejected under the provisions of Section 21 but the resolution carrying the motion was set aside on a technical objection. Learned counsel for respondents submit that the learned Commissioner was not unjustified in observing so.
13.Sub-Section (3) of Section 21 provides that no-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of one year from the date on which such person enters his office; six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires; one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. Learned counsel for respondents submit that as the resolution carrying the motion was rejected by the Addl. Collector, therefore, within one year from the date of the order of the Collector, the second motion would not lie. In the opinion of this Court, this argument is mis-conceived. Sub-Section (3) of Section 21 provides that no-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. The learned Addl. Collector did not reject the motion of no-confidence; the Panchayat in its meeting did not reject the no-confidence motion, infact the motion was carried in the Panchayat meeting, but the resolution carrying the motion was rejected, rather set aside by the Addl. Collector on the ground that the meeting was not proper and the motion was carried in an illegal manner. Th order passed by the Addl. Collector on the earlier occasion would not mean that he has rejected the earlier no-confidence motion. The order as it stands would only mean that the manner in which the motion was carried was contrary to law and could not be approved. The learned Addl. Commissioner was certainly wrong in holding that after rejection of the first motion of no-confidence, the meeting could not be held or the motion could not be considered within one year. The learned Addl. Commissioner has not tried to appreciate the law in its true perspective and on its cursory reading has recorded the wrong findings. Even for the sake of repeatation it is again observed that if a motion of no-confidence is rejected in the meeting or the motion of no-confidence is rejected by the Collector under Section 21(4), then alone a second motion would not lie within one year from the date of rejection of the first motion, but if the resolution carrying the motion is set aside or quashed because of the procedural defects or non-observance of the mandatory provisions of law, then in such a situation such a motion can be re-considered in accordance with law because setting aside of the resolution carrying the motion would not meen that the motion itself was rejected”.
Hence, the contention of petitioner that second no confidence motion is not in accordance with law as it is being carried out within one year of earlier no confidence motion is misconceived as earlier no confidence motion could not take place due to technical defects which was not rejected in the earlier occasion.
Now, this Court will examine the next submission of petitioner that the SDO while fixing the meeting of no confidence has not acted in accordance with Rules, 1994.
Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 reads as under;-Rule - 3. Notice.– [(1) Elected members of Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat desiring to move a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat or President or Vice-President of Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, shall give a notice thereof to the prescribed authority in the form appended to these rules ;
Provided that such notice shall be signed by not less than one third of the total number of elected of the concerned Panchayat ;
Provided further that where the elected members desire to move the motion of no confidence against both the Sarpanch and UpSarpanch. President and Vice-President of Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, they shall give separate notice.]
The prescribed authority, on receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) shall sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which hour and at which the notice has been given to him and shall acknowledge its receipt.
On receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21 (3), 28 (3) and 35 (3), as the case may be. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be dispatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting.
This Court in the matter of Smt. Janki Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WPC No.2757 of 2021, decided on 25.07.2023 has observed in paragraph Nos.11 to 17 as under;-
With respect to other grounds raised by learned counsel for petitioner that S.D.O. has got the signature of Panchas who submitted application for convening no confidence motion through Chief Executive Officer is in violation of Rule 3 (2) and 3 of the Rules of 1994. Perusal of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994 would show that requirement under the said rules is only that Prescribed Authority has to satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21 (3) of the Act of 1993. Section 21 (3) of the Act of 1993 is extracted below for ready reference :-
“21.No-confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. - (1) On a motion of no-confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three fourth of Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no-confidence is discussed against him. Such meeting shall be convened in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint. The Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take part in, the proceeding of the meeting.
(3)No-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of,-
(i)one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch enter their respective office;
(ii)six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires:
(iii)one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.
(4)If the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under sub-section (1), he shall, within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as possible, within thirty days from the date on which it was received by him, and his decision shall be final.”
12.Challenge to the proceedings of no confidence motion is not on the ground that it was convened contrary to the provisions as mentioned under Section 21 (3) of the Act of 1993. In the Case at hand, the Prescribed Authority for his satisfaction have got the signatures of the Panchas in the application placed before him verified. After satisfying, he proceeded for convening the no confidence motion. There is no specific provision in this regard and therefore, once the Prescribed Authority recorded his satisfaction that the application is in accordance with the provisions under Section 21 of the Act of 1993, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that entire proceedings is vitiated as Prescribed Authority has not verified the signatures himself is also not sustainable.
13.The petitioner in this writ petition has not pleaded that she suffered serious prejudice at any stage of proceeding. In absence of any serious prejudice shown, pleaded, no confidence motion carried out by majority can not be interfered with. In democratic system when majority of elected Panchas have posed no confidence motion on petitioner. Provision under Section 21 of the Act of 1993 and the Rules of 1994 only provides that no confidence motion can be requested before the Prescribed Authority and it has to be convened in accordance with the Rules of 1994 subject to application is not falling within the Sub-Section 3 of Section 21 of the Act of 1993.
14.In case of Bhulin Dewangan vs State of MP & Others {2000 (4) MPHT 69}, Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh considered the non-compliance of the Rules of 1994 and observed thus :-
“15.The general rule is that non-compliance of mandatory requirement results in nullification of the Act. There are, however, several exceptions to the same. If certain requirements or conditions are provided by statute in the interest of a particular person, the requirements or conditions, although mandatory, may be waived by him if no public interest are involved and in such a case the act done will be valid even if the requirements or conditions have not been performed. This appears to be the reason for learned C.K. Prasad, J., in Dhumadhandin v. State of M.P. (1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 49) which was followed by R.S. Garg, J., in Mahavir Saket v. Collector, Rewa (1998 (1) JLJ 113) for holding that mere non-compliance of first part of the rule in fixing a meeting beyond the prescribed days of the motion of no-confidence would not invalidate the whole proceedings. In case of Dhumadhandin (supra), the Sarpanch did not question the validity of the notice calling the meeting of no-confidence and in fact had taken chance by facing the motion. R.S. Garg, J., in Mahavir Saket (supra) placed reliance on the decision of C.K. Prasad, J., in Dhumadhandin (supra) to up-hold the passing of the no-confidence motion in the adjourned meeting as in the meeting called within the prescribed fifteen days the Presiding Officer was not available. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 permits reference of a dispute to the Collector by Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom a notice of no confidence motion had been passed. The proceedings of the no-confidence motion or other proceedings under the Act are also assailable in this Court as Constitutional Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As has been construed by us, even though second part of the rule requiring dispatch of notice of the meeting to the member is mandatory, yet in every case of challenge to the proceeding of no-confidence motion either before the Collector or this Court, it would still be open to the Collector or this Court to find out whether in a given case non-compliance of any part of the rule has in fact resulted in any failure of justice or has caused any serious prejudice to any of the parties. The general rule is that a mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance and the directory one only substantial. But even where the provision is mandatory, every non-compliance of the same need not necessarily result in nullification of the whole action. In a given situation even for non-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. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution 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. This is how various Single Bench decisions in which even after finding some infraction of the second part of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994, the resolution of no-confidence motion passed was not invalidated on the ground that no substantial prejudice thereby was caused to the affected parties. The intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the provisions contained in Section 21 and the Rule 3 (3) framed thereunder. The provisions do evince an intention that a meeting of the no-confidence motion be called within a reasonable period of not later than 15 days and every member has to be informed of the same seven days in advance. A notice of no-confidence motion is required to be moved by not less than 1/3rd of the total number of elected members as required by first Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 and can be lawfully carried by a resolution passed by majority of not less than 3/4th of the Panchas present and voting and such majority has to be more than 2/3rd of the total number of Panchas constituting the Panchayat in accordance with subsection (1) of Section 21 of the Act. This being the substance of the provisions under the Act and the rules, a mere non-compliance of second part of Sub-rule (3) would not in every case invalidate the action unless the Collector while deciding the dispute under Sub-section (4) of Section 21 or this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution comes to the conclusion that such non-compliance has caused serious prejudice to the affected office bearer or has otherwise resulted in failure of justice.
15.In case of Sahasram Jangde & Ors vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others {2013 (4) CGLJ 526}, this Court observed as under :-"6.When the law laid down by the full Bench of M.P. High Court and Division Bench of this Court is applied to the facts of the present case, it is to be seen that respondent No.6 Sarpanch has not raised any ground before the Additional Collector that because of the fact that meeting was convened on 8th day from the date of dispatch of notice and not on 9th day, and thus clear 7 days notice was not issued, she has suffered grave prejudice in preparing herself for the meeting and there being no such finding by the Additional Collector in the impugned order, it will be taken as if no prejudice has been caused to respondent No.6 Sarpanch and thus in absence of prejudice or failure of justice, the Additional Collector has wrongly set aside the resolution of the Gram Panchayat declaring the no-confidence motion to be passed. It is also to be seen that once this Court in the earlier writ petition has held that the earlier resolution of the Gram Panchayat passing no-confidence motion in May, 2011 having been annulled on technical grounds, the bar against moving of another motion within one year would not apply, the SDO(Revenue) should not have sought opinion from the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat or from the Deputy Director Panchayat. However, by doing so, he wasted 7 days in the process. Therefore, once the no confidence motion has been passed the democratic norms and the statutory provisions cannot be left at the mercy of the prescribed authority when the law is well settled in the case of Bhulin Dewangan(Supra). Declaring the resolution of the Gram Panchayat which has passed the no confidence motion by majority as illegal would render the wish of the house nugatory and the Sarpanch who has lost the confidence of the house shall be allowed to function without any mandate in her favour. Such interpretation of Rule is neither permissible nor contemplated and this Court will not allow such effort of the prescribed authority to frustrate the will of the house by adopting dilatory tactics on the pretext of seeking legal opinion or opinion from the higher authorities. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has relied on judgment of M.P. High Court in the matter of Jugraj Singh Markam Vs. Dhannalal Maravi and others : 2003 (4) MPLJ 378. However, in view of the discussion made above, and particularly the law laid down by the Full Bench of the M.P. High Court and the peculiar facts of this case, the said judgment relied upon by respondent No.6 has no application and is distinguishable. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dt. 28.06.2012 passed by the Additional Collector is set aside. Consequently respondent No.6 no longer remains as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dahida, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh."
16.In the aforementioned decision, the Court have held that every non-compliance of mandatory provisions need not necessarily resulted nullification of the whole action and in the given situation of non-fulfillment of the mandatory provisions the authority empowered to take decision may refuse to nullify the action on the ground that no substantial prejudice has been caused to the party affected.
17.In absence of raising any specific grounds that members against whom no confidence motion is carried stating that she suffered grave prejudice in the procedure adopted for convening the no confidence meeting no such finding can be recorded.
In the case at hand, it appears from the documents that one Up-Sarpanch and 15 Panchs including the intervenor in this petition had moved an application before the SDO stating that they are dissatisfied with the work of the Sarpanch/petitioner as no development is being carried out by her and the working of gram panchayat is not being carried out properly as such, they have lost confidence in the petitioner/Sarpanch. Thereafter, the SDO directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon to verify the proposal of no confidence motion as brought by members of the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly vide memorandum dated 10.08.2026, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon has duly verified the application and submitted its report and stated that for the no confidence motion against the petitioner, one Up-Sarpanch and fifteen Panchs including the intervenor have appended their signature in the resolution for no confidence against the petitioner. The SDO after due satisfaction of the report of the CEO found that the members of the Gram Panchayat have moved a resolution of no confidence against the petitioner and thereby directed to convene the meeting of no confidence on 20.08.2026, which is in accordance with law and cannot be said to be void of statutory obligations. As such, second argument raised by petitioner that the SDO has not satisfied himself before convening the meeting is rejected being wholly baseless.
For the foregoing discussion, both the grounds raised by the petitioner that without there being completion of 1 year, second no confidence motion is not in accordance with law and the SDO has not satisfied himself before convening the meeting is rejected. Entire proceedings as well as Impugned order dated 10.08.2026 warrants no interference by this Court.
In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed being bereft of merits.
Sd/-(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
| The date when the judgment is reserved | The date when the judgment is pronounced | The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website | |
| Operative | Full | ||
| 18.08.2026 | 20.08.2026 | ------ | 20.08.2026 |