Citation : 2003 Local Law (CG) 64
The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected a challenge to Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, confirming that a Sarpanch who is directly elected may still be removed by a no-confidence motion passed by the Gram Panchayat. The bench, led by Justice Fakhruddin, dismissed the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, finding that the impugned provision does not violate Article 14.
The petitioner argued that the statute was arbitrary because the Sarpanch is chosen directly by voters while the Panchas are elected from wards, and that Panchas should not have the power to remove a directly elected head. The court disagreed, pointing to established precedent that leaves the method of election and removal to the state legislature’s policy choices. The judgment notes the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jagdish Prasad Bhunjwa v. State of M.P., which held that indirect methods of removal are not inherently discriminatory when the Panchas themselves are elected representatives of the same electorate.
The court also relied on Supreme Court authority in Mohanlal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Raibareli, which accepted that a board or body may remove its presiding officer by a vote of no confidence regardless of whether that officer was elected directly or indirectly. That earlier decision emphasized that a collective body must be empowered to check the functioning of its head to prevent arbitrary conduct and to uphold accountability.
A second issue before the court was procedural. The Gram Panchayat originally had 17 members, but one resigned before the no-confidence motion was moved, leaving 16 members at the time the motion was considered on February 19, 2003. The petitioner contended that the arithmetic should have been based on the original 17-member strength. The court rejected that argument, interpreting the statute’s phrase “total number of panchas constituting the gram panchayat for the time being” to mean the current membership when the resolution is put to vote.
The court reviewed earlier rulings on similar questions, including Shankarlal Patidar v. State of M.P. and Rameshwar Dayal Maharaman v. B.N. Tripathi, both of which support determining majority on the basis of actual membership at the time of the vote. Applying that principle, the court found the statutory thresholds satisfied. With 16 constituting the Gram Panchayat at the time, 14 members were present and voting, which exceeded the three quarters required of members present and voting. Of those 14, 11 voted in favor, which met the requirement that at least two thirds of the total number of Panchas for the time being be in favor. The court concluded that the no-confidence motion was validly passed and faulted the Presiding Officer’s contrary finding. The Additional Collector’s earlier order, which had held the motion valid, was found to be correct.
On that basis the petition was dismissed with costs. The court found the provision intra vires and not ultra vires. Counsel fee was ordered as per scale where certified.
This ruling reinforces two key principles. First, legislatures have latitude to design local governance structures, including who removes whom and by what process, provided the law is not arbitrary. Second, procedural calculations for quorum and majorities under statutes that use the phrase “for the time being” are to be made with reference to the actual composition of the body when the resolution is considered, not an earlier or idealized membership.
Case Details : W.P. No. 2121 of 2003, Bhagirathi Nirmalkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (31.07.2003)
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Section 21, Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Section 21(1); Constitution Of India – Article 14, Constitution Of India – Article 226, Constitution Of India – Article 227
Cases Referred:
Jagdish Prasad Bhunjwa v. State of M.P. 1997 (1) MPLJ 512; Mohanlal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Raibareli, AIR 1993 SC 2042; Shankarlal Patidar v. State of M.P., 1975 MPLJ 116; Rameshwar Dayal Maharaman v. B.N. Tripathi, 1978 MPLJ 318
======
संविधान – अधिनियम की वैधता – अल्ट्रा वायर्स (Ultra Vires) – मामला छत्तीसगढ़ पंचायत राज एवं ग्राम स्वराज अधिनियम, 1993 की धारा 21 की संवैधानिक वैधता से संबंधित है।
याचिकाकर्ता का तर्क था कि सरपंच का निर्वाचन ग्राम पंचायत के मतदाताओं द्वारा प्रत्यक्ष रूप से किया जाता है, जबकि पंच वार्डों से चुने जाते हैं। इसलिए, पंचों को सरपंच को अविश्वास प्रस्ताव के माध्यम से हटाने का अधिकार नहीं होना चाहिए, क्योंकि उन्होंने उसे चुना नहीं है। इस आधार पर धारा 21, जो पंचों को सरपंच को अविश्वास प्रस्ताव द्वारा हटाने का अधिकार देती है, को अल्ट्रा वायर्स घोषित करने की मांग की गई।
न्यायालय का निर्णय : माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने इस तर्क को अस्वीकार करते हुए कहा कि धारा 21 असंवैधानिक नहीं है। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने मोहनलाल त्रिपाठी बनाम जिला मजिस्ट्रेट, रायबरेली के मामले में यह सिद्धांत स्थापित किया था कि अध्यक्ष (President) को अविश्वास प्रस्ताव द्वारा हटाने का अधिकार बोर्ड में निहित है। चाहे अध्यक्ष का चुनाव प्रत्यक्ष रूप से मतदाताओं द्वारा हुआ हो या अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से बोर्ड द्वारा, इससे कोई अंतर नहीं पड़ता।
इसी तर्क के आधार पर न्यायालय ने माना कि पंचों को सरपंच के विरुद्ध अविश्वास प्रस्ताव पारित करने का अधिकार है। यह प्रावधान विधिसम्मत है, और धारा 21 वैध (Intra Vires) है, न कि अल्ट्रा वायर्स (Ultra Vires)।
परिणाम : याचिका निरस्त की गई।
निष्कर्ष : सरपंच का चुनाव भले ही प्रत्यक्ष रूप से होता है, परंतु उसे हटाने की शक्ति ग्राम पंचायत के पंचों के पास वैधानिक रूप से निहित है। यह व्यवस्था संविधान के अनुच्छेद 14 का उल्लंघन नहीं करती और विधायी अधिकार के दायरे में आती है।
