1 2026:CGHC:23582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2794 of 2026 • Fuleshwari Bai Banjare W/o Shri Dhannulal Banjare, Aged About 40 Years, Sarpanch, Village Turma R/o Village Turama Post Datan Khaira Tahsil Lavan, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (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 - The Collector Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 3 - Sub Divisional Office (R) Cum Specified Officer Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Turma Block Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 5 - Varsha Tondan W/o Manaram Tondan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Turma Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 6 - Lilavati Sahu W/o Rajesh Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Turma Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 7 - Mankumari Sahu W/o Dhaneshwar Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Turma Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 8 - Balmukund Sahu S/o Narottam Prasad Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Turma Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 9 - Uttar Kumar Tondan S/o Ram Singh Tondan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Turma Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.06.05 15:33:53 +0530 2 10 - Neera Paikara W/o Mukesh Kumar Paikara Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Turma Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 11 - Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Punamchand Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Turma Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 12 - Shivkumari Prajapati W/o Khikhram Prajapati Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Turma Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 13 - David Kumar Prajapati S/o Sundarlal Prajapati Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Turma Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.K. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appears alongwith Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 04/06/2026 1) Heard. 2) By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) :- “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 29.05.2026 (received on 01.06.2026) (ANNEXURE P/1), in the interest of Justice. 3 10.3 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) From perusal of this petition, it appears that in an earlier round of litigation, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing WPC No.2687 of 2026, in which, vide order dated 29/05/2026, this Court has found that the notice issued on 20/05/2026, was served upon the petitioner on 24/05/2026 and the date of the no confidence motion was fixed on 29/05/2026 and therefore, the 7 days clear notice has not been served upon the petitioner, as such, this Court has directed that the no confidence motion to be kept in abeyance for 2 days and has further directed that the no confidence motion shall take place only after 7 days from 20/05/2026 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, the concerned SDO (Revenue) has issued a notice on 29/05/2026 while stating the date of no confidence motion is scheduled on 04/06/2026 on the basis of earlier notice, which was issued on 20/05/2026 and was served upon the petitioner on 24/05/2026. Now, the petitioner has again preferred this writ petition while challenging the order dated 29/05/2026 stating that the notice dated 29/05/2026 was served upon the petitioner/the Sarpanch, on 01/06/2026 and, as such, 7 days clear notice was not served upon the petitioner and therefore, the no confidence motion, which is directed to be held on 04/06/2026, is in violation of C.G. Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam. 4) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the proceedings have not been completed within a period of 15 days, as 4 such, it is against the provisions of the law. The petitioner is again required to be given 7 days clear notice as mandated in Rules of 1994. 5) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submits that the order, which was passed by this Court in an earlier occasion on 29/05/2026, goes to show that only for 2 days, the proceedings of no confidence motion was kept in abeyance and it has been specifically directed that the proceedings of no confidence motion shall take place only after 7 days and, as such, considering this aspects of the matter, on the basis of earlier notice dated 20/05/2026, the concerned SDO (Revenue) has issued a direction on 29/05/2026 with regard to meeting of no confidence motion, which is scheduled to be held on 04/06/2026 and, as such, there is no illegality in passing the order, because the petitioner has already received the notice way back on 24/05/2026 and the notice, which has been issued on 29/05/2026, is also apparent. 6) I have heard, Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7) From a perusal of the record as well as from perusal of Rule 3(3) of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up- Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice- President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav), Niyam, 1994, this Court, while considering the aforesaid matter has passed the order dated 29/05/2026, while keeping the proceedings in abeyance, stated that 7 days clear notice was not apparent and after 2 days from 29/05/2026, i.e. on or after 31/05/2026, the 7 days clear notice would be completed. 5 8) The concerned Co-ordinate Bench has considered that since the notice was served only on 24/05/2026, as such, the clear 7 days notice would be completed on 31/05/2026, as such, this Court has directed to convene the meeting of no confidence motion on or after 31/05/2026, which, is in opinion of this Court, is in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has already received notice on 24/05/2026, as such, another 7 days clear notice is not required to be given to the concerned Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and further the requirement of 15 days in completion of proceeding is also fulfilled in the present case, as such, the meeting scheduled on 04/06/2026 is in accordance with law. The petition is breft of merits. 9) With these observations and directions, the petition stands dismissed. 10) In view of above, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Chandrakant