1 2026:CGHC:23580-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 503 of 2026 Fuleshwari Banjare W/o Shri Dhannulal Banjare Aged About 40 Years Sarpanch, Village Turma, R/o Village Turama, Post Datan (Khaira) Tahsil Lavan, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Cum Specified Officer Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Turma, Block Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Village Lavan, Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Varsha Tondan W/o Manaram Tondan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Turma, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - Lilavati Sahu W/o Rajesh Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Turma, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 8 - Mankumari Sahu W/o Dhaneshwar Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Turma, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 9 - Balmukund Sahu S/o Narotam Prasad Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Turma, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.06.04 16:08:27 +0530 2 10 - Utter Kumar Tondan S/o Ram Singh Tondan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Turma, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 11 - Neera Paikara W/o Mukesh Kumar Paikara Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Turma, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 12 - Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Punamchand Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Turma, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 13 - Shivkumari Prajapati W/o Khikhram Prajapati Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Turma, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 14 - David Kumar Prajapati S/o Sunderlal Prajapati Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Turma, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. A.G. For Respondents No.9, 10 & 12 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate appeared through Video Conferencing Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 04.06.2026 1. The appellant/writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) has preferred this writ appeal calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 29/05/2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.2687/2026. 3 2. The petitioner had earlier invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated for consideration of a motion of no confidence against her. The principal challenge before the learned Single Judge was founded on 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 (for short, “the Rules, 1994”) read with Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, “the Act, 1993”). It was contended that the mandatory requirement of seven days' notice had not been complied with. 3. The specific case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that although the notice convening the meeting for consideration of the no- confidence motion was issued on 20/05/2026 fixing 29/05/2026 as the date of meeting, the same was served upon her only on 24/05/2026. Therefore, according to the petitioner, she was not afforded the mandatory notice period contemplated under the Act, 1993 and the Rules, 1994. 4. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, the learned Single Judge found prima facie substance in the grievance of the petitioner regarding insufficiency of notice and accordingly directed that the proposed meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion be kept in abeyance for two days and be conducted only after expiry of the requisite period of seven days, i.e., on or after 31/05/2026. Relevant observation of the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:- “From perusal of the dispatch register produced by the learned Dy. Advocate General, it is quite vivid that the notice was 4 issued to the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Balodabazar for service of notice on 20.05.2026 as per practice followed under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam who in turn has to serve the notice to the petitioner who in the present case has received the notice on 24.05.2026 and the no- confidence motion is to be conducted on 29.05.2026. Thus, Prima-facie it cannot be said that within 7 days the notice has been given to the petitioner. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that 7 days notice is required to be completed for the purpose of receipt of notice from the date it has been dispatched. This submission deserves to be rejected as the rules mandates 7 days notice from the date it has been dispatched, but this 7 days has to be counted from the date when Janpad Panchayat has dispatched the notice as it is the ultimate dispatcher of the notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer for conducting the no-confidence motion and the dispatch register shown by the State does not reflect that the said notice has been dispatched on 20.05.2026 to the petitioner therefore, the no-confidence motion directed to be kept in abeyance for two days and shall take place only after 7 days of the notice i.e. on or after 31.05.2026. 7. The petitioner is directed to cooperate on the no-confidence motion and be ready with all the records available to her and in turn the Sub-Divisional Officer shall examine the same in accordance with law” 5. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner would argue on two grounds. Firstly, the prescribed authority failed to furnish the documents relating to the proposed no-confidence motion and, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner stand vitiated. According to the petitioner, such non-supply of documents has caused serious 5 prejudice to her. Secondly, it is urged that the notice convening the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion was issued in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1993 and the Rules, 1994. It is, therefore, contended that having found substance in the grievance regarding insufficiency of notice, the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the entire no-confidence proceedings instead of merely postponing the meeting. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.9, 10 and 12 would oppose the aforesaid contention of the petitioner. They would submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter and on perusal of the dispatched register of the Janapad Panchayat, Balodabazar, has rightly disposed of the petition by keeping the No-confidence motion proceeding in abeyance for two days and thereafter directed that the proceeding be concluded only after completion of period of seven days notice i.e. on or after 31/05/2026. In respect of the contention of the petitioner that on account of non supply of documents along with the notice severe prejudice is caused to her is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the State by referring Annexure P-3 to the writ petition would submit that the petitioner herself filed the complaint before the Panchas of Gram Panchayat Turma on 15/05/2026 and as such, the petitioner cannot said that on account of non supply of document, severe prejudice caused to her. Even otherwise, the ground of alleged prejudice has never been raised by the petitioner before the learned writ Court and as such, the said ground cannot be taken subsequently in the present appeal. They would pray for dismissal of the writ appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Turma and assumed charge on 25/04/2025. Certain Panchas of the Gram Panchayat initiated proceedings for moving a motion of no confidence against the petitioner on 15/05/2026. Pursuant thereto, notice dated 20/05/2026 was issued fixing 29/05/2026 as the date for consideration of the motion. It is also not in dispute that the notice was served upon the petitioner on 24/05/2026. 9. The learned Single Judge, upon examining the dispatch register and the factual matrix obtaining on record, found that the petitioner had not been afforded the requisite notice period before the scheduled date of meeting. Consequently, instead of permitting the meeting to proceed on 29/05/2026, the learned Single Judge directed that the proceedings be deferred and conducted only after expiry of seven days from the date of service of notice upon the petitioner i.e. on or after 31.5.2026. 10. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether, in the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge was justified in curing the procedural defect by postponing the meeting or whether the entire proceedings ought to have been quashed as contended by the petitioner. 11. It would be apt to quote Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 for adjudication of the present lis : “3. Notice. (1) Elected members of Gram Panchayat, Janapad 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 Janapad or Zila 7 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 members of the concerned Panchayat: Provided further that where the elected members desire to move the motion of no confidence against both the Sarpanch and Up- Sarpanch, President and Vice-President of Janapad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, they shall give separate notice. (2) 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. (3) 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. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janapad or 8 Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting." 12. Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 mandates that notice of the meeting convened for consideration of a no-confidence motion shall be despatched seven days before the meeting. The object underlying the provision is to ensure adequate opportunity to the elected office bearer as well as the members of the Panchayat to participate in the proceedings. At the same time, it is equally well settled that every infraction of the procedural requirement contained in Rule 3(3) does not automatically render the entire proceedings void. 13. In Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2001 (2) MPLJ 372, the Full Bench of the M.P. High Court has held in para-8 of the judgment that "The second part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 mandates that the prescribed authority after fixing date, time and place of the meeting within the prescribed period not later than 15 days as laid down in the first part of the Rule, shall cause despatch of notice of such meeting to every member of the Panchayat 7 days before the meeting. The said latter part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of 1994 Rules is mandatory as intimation of date, time and place of meeting to every member is essential to ensure his presence, if he so desires, in the meeting to be held on such vital issue of passing of no-confidence motion." The Full Bench thereafter proceeded to examine whether non-compliance of second part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 would, as necessary corollary, invalidate the proceeding held in the meeting called for passing no confidence motion. Upon consideration of different Single Bench judgments in the matter, the Full Bench concluded that every non-compliance of the rule need not necessarily result in nullification of the whole action, therefore, mere non-compliance of second 9 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 the High 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. 14. Tested on the aforesaid principles, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has already ensured compliance with the statutory requirement by directing that the meeting be held only after expiry of the requisite notice period. Thus, the defect complained of by the petitioner stood adequately remedied by judicial intervention itself. The petitioner has not demonstrated before us as to what further prejudice survives after passing of the aforesaid direction. 15. So far as the contention regarding non-supply of documents is concerned, we find that no such specific plea of prejudice was either raised before or adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not disclosed the nature of the documents allegedly withheld from her nor has she demonstrated how their non-supply has impaired her ability to participate in or defend herself during the proceedings. Mere assertion of prejudice, unsupported by material particulars, cannot furnish a ground for nullifying democratic proceedings initiated under the Act, 1993. That apart, Annexure P-3 filed by the petitioner herself indicates that she was aware of the complaint forming the basis of initiation of the no-confidence proceedings. In the absence of any specific pleading or material demonstrating actual prejudice 10 or failure of justice, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 16. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge adopted a balanced approach by safeguarding the statutory right of notice available to the petitioner while at the same time ensuring that the democratic process contemplated under Section 21 of the Act, 1993 is not frustrated on account of a curable procedural defect. We find no jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in this intra-Court appeal. 17. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ appeal, the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Judge Rahul