1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2751 of 2026 1 - Harsha Sahu W/o Shri Chandrashekhar Sahu, Aged About 28 Years Sarpanch, Village Gullu, R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Atal Bhawan, Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector , Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Cum Specified Officer Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar, Village Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Ritu Sahu W/o Tulsi Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Rupa Patel, W/o Yadram, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 8 - Kavita Dhruve, W/o Gopal, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 9 - Narayan Sahu S/o Jagatram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 10 - Parmeshwar Sahu S/o Madan, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 11 - Tikesh Sahu, W/o Bhuneshwar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 12 - Mantoria Dheewar, W/o Shambhuram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 13 - Tikeshwari Dheewar, W/o Yogesh Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 14 - Santosh Sahu S/o Sukhuram, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 15 - Ashok Yadav, S/o Feru, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 16 - Kamlesh Manhare, S/o Bhagat, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 17 - Heeram Banjare, W/o Punit Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 18 - Nemichand Patel, S/o Kartik Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 19 - Pramila Patel, W/o Tejram, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 20 - Satrupa Tondon, S/o Hemraj, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 21 - Dhaneshwari Dheewar, W/o Dhaneshwar, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 22 - Yogeshwar Sahu, S/o Mohan Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 23 - Arvind Tondan S/o Devnarayan, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Gullu, Janpad Panchayat Aarang Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 25.06.2026 1. Heard. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and validity of the proceedings initiated for moving a no-confidence motion against her, pursuant to the proceedings dated 25.05.2026 and the memo dated 27.05.2026 issued by Respondent No.3, 4 whereby a meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion was scheduled to be held on 04.06.2026. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondent no.03 relating to the petitioner's case and quash the entire proceedings as initiated on 25.05.2026 including memo dated 27.05.2026 issued by the respondent no. 03 regarding no- confidence motion against the petitioner scheduled to be held on 04.06.2026 being illegal as the same is against the law and relevant rules. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to stay the further proceedings of no confidence motion scheduled to be held on 04.06.2026 as per memo dated 27.05.2026 till disposal of the case. 10.3 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper as per the nature of the case. An affidavit in support of this writ petition is filed herewith.” 4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gullu, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, and assumed charge on 13.05.2025. It is contended that certain Panchas submitted a requisition on 25.05.2026 for initiation of a no-confidence motion under Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, whereupon the 5 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) initiated proceedings and issued the impugned memo fixing the meeting on 04.06.2026. According to the petitioner, the notice dated 27.05.2026 was merely affixed in front of her residence on 29.05.2026 and was never personally served upon her. It is further pleaded that the mandatory requirement of seven clear days' notice as contemplated under Rule 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Rules, 1994 has not been complied with. The petitioner has also alleged that the proceedings are politically motivated, that certain Panchas are encroachers, and that one of the members was allegedly below the prescribed age at the time of election. On these grounds, the petitioner has sought quashment of the entire no-confidence proceedings and consequential interim protection. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside primarily on the ground that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994 has not been followed, inasmuch as no clear seven days' notice was served upon the petitioner before convening the meeting. It is argued that mere affixture of the notice on 29.05.2026 for a meeting fixed on 04.06.2026 cannot be treated as valid service in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the proceedings have been initiated with mala fide 6 intentions immediately after completion of one year of the petitioner's tenure and are politically motivated. It is also contended that certain requisitionists are themselves encroachers upon government land and one of the Panchas was ineligible to contest the election on account of being below the prescribed age. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the entire proceedings are arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Section 21 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules of 1994, and consequently deserve to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the proceedings have been initiated strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions governing no-confidence motions. It is submitted that the competent authority has acted within its jurisdiction after receipt of a valid requisition from the requisite number of elected Panchas. It is further submitted that disputed questions relating to service of notice and other factual aspects cannot appropriately be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is thus prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The principal grievance raised by the petitioner relates to alleged non-compliance with the requirement of service of notice under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994. Apart from the said contention, the 7 petitioner has also questioned the bona fides of the requisitionists and the eligibility of one of the elected Panchas. All these issues necessarily involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, which ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the notice was duly served in accordance with law, whether affixture was resorted to after exhausting the prescribed mode of service, whether there existed sufficient compliance with the statutory requirements, and whether any of the requisitionists suffered from any legal disqualification are all matters requiring factual determination by the competent authority. 9. It is well settled that a writ court does not ordinarily interfere with the statutory process of a no-confidence motion unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or a manifest violation of mandatory statutory provisions apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, the issues raised by the petitioner cannot be conclusively adjudicated without leading evidence and examination of disputed facts. 10. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned proceedings at this stage. 11. However, it is observed that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the outcome of the no-confidence proceedings or any order passed therein, it shall be open for her to avail such 8 remedy as may be available to her under law, and all questions raised in the present writ petition are left open to be urged before the appropriate forum. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 13. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha