1 2026:CGHC:21960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2356 of 2026 Smt. Rabina Ratre W/o Ashish Kumar Ratre, Aged About 32 Years Elected Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Barapipar, Janpad Panchayat Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Panchayat Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 Collector, District- Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Cum Prescribed Authority (Panchayat) Dabhara District- Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janapd Panchayat Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Mahadev Tandon S/o Late Shri Dugru Tandon Aged About 71 Years Panch Ward No 1 R/o Village Barapipar, Tahsil Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.05.12 18:26:04 +0530 2 6 - Smt. Fulbai Patel W/o Shishukumar Patel Aged About 39 Years Panch Ward No. 2 R/o Village Barapipar, Tahsil Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Nilam Patel W/o Devendra Patel Aged About 31 Years Panch Ward No. 3 R/o Village Barapipar, Tahsil Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) 8 - Biru Barman S/o Udenarayan Barman Aged About 32 Years Panch Ward No. 4 R/o Village Barapipar, Tahsil Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) 9 - Smt. Panbudi Barman W/o Punwasi Barman Aged About 58 Years Panch Ward No. 8 R/o Village Barapipar, Tahsil Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) 10 - Smt. Janki Pankaj W/o Dhansay Pankaj Aged About 40 Years Panch Ward No. 9 R/o Village Barapipar, Tahsil Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) 11 - Nandkumar Patel S/o Tarachand Patel Aged About 46 Years Panch Ward No. 10 R/o Village Barapipar, Tahsil Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) 12 - Lorilal Yadaw S/o Chamrulal Yadaw Aged About 57 Years Panch Ward No. 12 R/o Village Barapipar, Tahsil Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr TK Jha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 3 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : 10.1 Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the impugned notice dated 27.04.2026 (ΑΝNEXURE P/1), (Received on 03.05.2026) in the interest of Justice. 2. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner. 3. Mr. TK Jha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the motion of No-Confidence was moved before the SDO(R), Dabhra on 22.4.2026 and was registered on the same date. However, pursuant to Rule 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice- President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav), Niyam, 1994 (in short “the Rules, 1994”), the meeting of the no-confidence motion must be convened within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In the present case, the meeting is scheduled on 11.5.2026, which is 4 beyond the prescribed period of 15 days. He submits that these provisions are mandatory in nature, therefore, the failure to adhere to the statutory timeline vitiates the proceedings. Consequently, the notice issued for the No-Confidence motion is legally unsustainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. A plain reading of Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 would show that 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, Janapad 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. 6. Furthermore, while rules may allow for an extension in circumstances beyond control, no such grounds have been established here. As such, the impugned order is not in accordance with law. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the meeting for the No-Confidence Motion was not scheduled within the mandatory period of 15 days as prescribed under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994, I am of the opinion that the procedure adopted is contrary to law. 5 8. Accordingly, the impugned notice/order (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. However, the concerned authorities are at liberty to initiate a fresh No-Confidence Motion, and thereafter, are directed to proceed strictly in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay