1 CGHC010279192026 2026:CGHC:30815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3773 of 2026 1 - Khileshwari Mahar, W/o- Virendra Kumar Mahar, aged about 33 Years Elected Sarpanch, R/o- Gram Panchayat, Dongi Tarayi, Tehsil, Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (R)/ Prescribed Authority, Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.). 3 - Ishwar Prasad Sahu, Up - Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dongi Tarayi, Tehsil Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.).. 4 - Dhaneshwari Yadu, Punch, Gram Panchayat, Dongi Tarayi, Tehsil Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.). 5 - Utraa Sahu, Punch, Gram Panchayat, Dongi Tarayi, Tehsil, Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.). 6 - Shankar Lal, Punch, Gram Panchayat, Dongi Tarayi, Tehsil, Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 7 - Tanuja Sharma, Punch, Gram Panchayat, Dongi Tarayi, Tehsil, Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.). 8 - Manoj Yadav, Punch, Gram Panchayat, Dongi Tarayi, Tehsil, Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.). 9 - Pushpa Netam, Punch, Gram Panchayat, Dongi Tarayi, Tehsil, Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.). 10 - Pushpa Thakur, Punch, Gram Panchayat, Dongi Tarayi, Tehsil, Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.). 11 - Sunita Bandhe, Punch, Gram Panchayat Dongi Tarayi,tehsil, Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the notice dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P/1) and entire proceeding initiated against her, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly pass any order deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice convening the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion was not issued by giving seven clear days’ notice, as the notice was issued on 3 14.07.2026 and served upon the petitioner on 15.07.2026. It is submitted that the law is well settled that the requirement of seven clear days’ is to be reckoned from the date of issuance of the notice, and, therefore, the statutory requirement has not been complied with in the present case. It is further submitted that there is also a violation of Rule 3, inasmuch as the requisite number of members proposing the no-confidence motion is not available. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that a perusal of the notice dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gundardehi, District Balod (C.G.), would show that as many as nine members have categorically expressed that they have lost confidence in the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that the application seeking initiation of the no- confidence motion has also been signed by nine members, thereby satisfying the requirement prescribed under the Rules. It is, therefore, contended that neither of the grounds urged by the petitioner merits acceptance, as the notice convening the meeting for the no-confidence motion as well as the order dated 10.07.2026 have been issued strictly in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. The material available on record demonstrates that the application for moving the no-confidence motion was signed by nine members, thereby satisfying the requirement prescribed under Rule 3 of the C.G. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat ke Sarpanch tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat tatha Zila Panchayat 4 ke President tatha Vice-President ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Rules, 1994. So far as the contention regarding non-compliance with the requirement of seven clear days’ notice under Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1994 is concerned, a perusal of the notice dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P/1) reveals that the meeting has been convened in accordance with the prescribed procedure and no illegality or procedural irregularity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 5. The writ petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju