1 2026:CGHC:20275 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2185 of 2026 1 - Dilendra Kumar Dahariya S/o Puran Lal Dahariya, R/o Ward No. 12 Indira Chowk Tamaseoni Raipur (C.G.) Up Sarpanch Village Tamaseoni District Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/prescribed Officer Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 5 - Nayab Tahsildar Abhanpur/presiding Officer, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record from the Court of Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned memo/notice dated 29/04/2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent SDO Revenue Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash set-aside the proceedings of no confidence motion against the Petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is a duly elected Panch of Village Panchayat Tamaseoni, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur, and was subsequently elected as Up-Sarpanch by the other Panchs, and has been discharging his duties with sincerity and dedication; that on 18.03.2026, due to political rivalry and personal animosity, the Sarpanch and certain Panchs submitted an application before respondent No. 3 (SDO, Abhanpur) seeking removal of the petitioner without assigning any reasons that 3 thereafter, on 01.04.2026, another application was submitted for initiating a no-confidence motion against the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 entertained the said application but failed to record satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the application and verification of signatures as required under Rules 3(2) and 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Rules, 1994; that on 07.04.2026, the respondent No. 3 delegated the matter to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, and sought verification of signatures and other details, pursuant to which a certificate dated 08.04.2026 was issued by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and forwarded by respondent No. 4 on 13.04.2026 that thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 29.04.2026 fixing the meeting for no-confidence motion on 30.04.2026, thereby providing less than 24 hours’ notice, contrary to the mandatory requirement of giving at least seven clear days’ notice; that such action is in violation of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules of 1994, and deprives the petitioner of a fair opportunity; and that, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the legality and validity of the impugned notice and proceedings. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings initiated for the no-confidence motion are vitiated by gross procedural irregularities and non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rules 3(1) to 3(3) of the Rules, 1994; it is contended that the prescribed authority has failed to record the 4 requisite satisfaction regarding the validity and authenticity of the application and signatures, which is a condition precedent for initiating such proceedings; it is further submitted that the impugned notice dated 29.04.2026 fixing the meeting on 30.04.2026 is wholly illegal, as it violates the mandatory requirement of issuing at least seven clear days’ notice, thereby rendering the entire process arbitrary and unsustainable in law; it is also urged that no reasons have been assigned in the application seeking no-confidence motion, which itself reflects malafide intention arising out of political rivalry; reliance is placed on the judgment of the Full Bench in Smt. Bhulin Dewangan vs. State of M.P. & Others and other decisions of this Hon’ble Court, wherein strict compliance of procedural requirements has been held to be mandatory; it is further contended that the respondent authority acted with undue haste and in a high-handed manner, thereby depriving the petitioner of a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself and participate in the democratic process; it is therefore prayed that the impugned notice and the entire proceedings for no-confidence motion be quashed and appropriate relief be granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State on instruction submits that the notice for no confidence motion which has been issued on 29.4.2026 has been re-called and if exigency arise fresh notice will be issued against the petitioner in accordance with law. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into account the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on instructions, that the impugned notice dated 29.04.2026 for convening the no- confidence motion has already been recalled and that, if the situation so warrants, a fresh notice shall be issued strictly in accordance with law and in compliance with the prescribed procedure, this Court is of the view that no further adjudication is required in the present matter at this stage. 7. 7. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with the observation that, in the event any fresh proceedings are initiated, the respondent authorities shall ensure strict adherence to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder, and shall afford due opportunity to all concerned parties. It is further observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law, if so aggrieved by any subsequent action. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat