The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a no-confidence motion passed against a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chhind in Sarangarh, Raigarh district, overturning a previous order of the Collector that had nullified the motion on technical grounds.
The case revolved around a no-confidence motion held on April 13, 2006, against the then Sarpanch, who had been elected in January 2005. Out of 21 Panchas, 16 voted in favor of the motion, while five opposed it. Following this, the Sarpanch was declared disqualified, and the post was deemed vacant.
However, the Sarpanch challenged the decision before the Collector, Raigarh. The Collector ruled in favor of the Sarpanch, holding that the meeting was invalid because it was presided over by Tehsildar Shri Sameer Nag, who was not specifically named in the authorization order. The order had initially designated Shri K.S. Mandavi, the previous Tehsildar, to oversee the meeting, but he had been transferred before the scheduled date.
Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, delivering the High Court’s order, found that the Collector’s reasoning was flawed. The Court noted that by the time of the meeting, Shri Mandavi was no longer serving as Tehsildar, and therefore, he was not competent to preside. Since Shri Sameer Nag had officially assumed charge as Tehsildar on April 4, 2006, he was legally empowered to conduct the proceedings.
The Court further observed that the Sarpanch had not raised any objection to the presiding officer’s authority during the meeting. Citing the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Prabhu Dayal Patel v. State of M.P. (2003), Justice Agnihotri held that where no prejudice is caused and the resolution is passed by an overwhelming majority, the motion cannot be declared null and void merely due to a technicality.
Concluding the judgment, the Court set aside the Collector’s order dated November 16, 2006, and directed that the no-confidence resolution be given full effect. The petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.
This decision reinforces the principle that technical irregularities should not invalidate a democratic decision unless they cause genuine prejudice or affect the fairness of the proceedings.
Case Title : Ghanshyam Yadav vs. Rameshwar Sahu and Ors. (05.12.2006)
======
निर्वाचन – अविश्वास प्रस्ताव –
प्रत्यर्थी क्रमांक 1 (सरपंच) को पद से अयोग्य घोषित किया गया। इस अयोग्यता की घोषणा के विरुद्ध अपील दायर की गई, जिसे इस आधार पर स्वीकृत किया गया कि अविश्वास प्रस्ताव कानून के अनुसार नहीं हुआ था।
निर्णय: न्यायालय ने यह पाया कि प्रस्ताव बहुमत से पारित हुआ था—21 पंचों में से 16 ने प्रस्ताव के पक्ष में मतदान किया था। साथ ही, प्रत्यर्थी ने बैठक के दौरान अध्यक्ष अधिकारी की अयोग्यता पर कोई आपत्ति नहीं उठाई थी।
अतः न्यायालय ने माना कि ऐसी स्थिति में प्रस्ताव को शून्य या अवैध नहीं ठहराया जा सकता। तदनुसार, याचिका स्वीकृत की गई और अविश्वास प्रस्ताव को पूर्ण प्रभाव से लागू करने का निर्देश दिया गया।
