1 CGHC010287242026 2026:CGHC:31966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3879 of 2026 1 - Chandrakanta Jangde W/o Yogesh Jangde Aged About 30 Years Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Dabri, R/o Village- Bijabhatha, Post- Bagharra, P.S. Kunda, District- Kabirdham (Cg) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, (Cg)- 492002 2 - The Collector Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham (CG) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (CG) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (CG) 5 - Ravikumari Manikpuri Panch, Ward No. 11, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, Village- Bhaisbod, District- Kabirdham (CG) 6 - Suniti Kshtriya Ward No. 7, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, Village- Bijabhatha, District- Kabirdham (CG) ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 7 - Chandrakali Vaishno Panch , Ward No. 4, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Panchayat Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (CG) 8 - Avantika Tiwari Panch, Ward No. 6, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (CG) 9 - Panchobai Mathur Panch, Ward No. 8, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, Village- Bijabhatha, District- Kabirdham (CG) 10 - Raajkumar Nirmalkar Panch, Ward No. 3 Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (CG) 11 - Santram Kashyap Panch Ward No. 1 Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (CG) 12 - Raghunandan Chandrakar Panch, Ward No. 5, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (CG) 13 - Mansingh Diwakar Panch Ward No. 2, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (CG) 14 - Bhagwat Rawat Panch Ward No. 9, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, Village- Bijabhatha, District- Kabirdham (CG) 15 - Bhagwat Rawat Panch Ward No. 9, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, Village- Bijabhatha, District- Kabirdham (CG) 16 - Pratima Rawat Panch Ward No. 10, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, Village- Bijabhatha, District- Kabirdham 3 (CG) 17 - Kumar Bai Vaishno Panch Ward No. 12, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, Village- Bhaisbod, District- Kabirdham (CG) 18 - Birendra Kumar Chandrakar Panch Ward No. 13, Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, Village- Bhaisbod, District- Kabirdham (CG) 19 - The Secretary Gram Panchyat Dabri, Post- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. K. Jha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Kunjam, Advocate For State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer For Caveator : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order (ANNEXURE P/1) and notice of no- confidence motion submitted to Prescribed authority/SDO(R)/Resp.no.3 4 dated 13.07.2026 against the petitioner (ANNEXURE P/2). 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to stop the no confidence motion declaring it to be illegal as not being organized after following proper rules. 10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to hold an enquiry into the matter before summoning the meeting as to whether the allegations haveany substance or not and the Panches who have signed the application were under any threat or undue influence. 10.5. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case :- The petitioner is the duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dabri, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.), and has been discharging her duties with sincerity and dedication towards the development and welfare of the Gram Panchayat since assuming office. She submits that she came to know through certain elected Panches that a proposal seeking to move a motion of no confidence against her had been submitted on 13.07.2026 before the Prescribed Authority by eight elected Panches of the Gram Panchayat. The proposal contains five allegations, the principal allegation being that the petitioner has been executing the affairs and developmental works of the 5 Gram Panchayat independently without consulting or informing the other Panches. Upon receipt of the said proposal, the respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), by communication dated 13.07.2026, called upon respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer to furnish the list of the elected Sarpanch and all elected Panches of Gram Panchayat Dabri, which information was duly supplied on the very same day. Thereafter, on 14.07.2026, certain elected Panches addressed a communication to respondent No. 4 requesting that a venue be finalized for convening the meeting to consider the proposed motion of no confidence. Subsequently, by order dated 15.07.2026, respondent No. 3 appointed the Revenue Officer, Kunda, Tehsil Kunda, District Kabirdham, as the Presiding Officer for conducting the proceedings and fixed 27.07.2026 at 11:00 A.M. as the date and time of the meeting, with the venue being the Middle School, Gram Panchayat Dabri. The petitioner contends that despite the initiation of the proceedings and fixation of the meeting, no notice of the proposed meeting was issued or served upon her or the elected Panches in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure. The petitioner further submits that the impugned proceedings have been initiated at the instance of her political rivals with the sole object of unlawfully removing her from the office of Sarpanch. According to the petitioner, the allegations levelled against her are wholly false, baseless and capable of being disproved from the official records and registers 6 of the Gram Panchayat. She apprehends that the proposed motion of no confidence may be carried through behind her back without adhering to the mandatory provisions of law and the prescribed procedure, thereby causing serious prejudice to her statutory and legal rights. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings initiated for convening the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence motion against the petitioner are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Upsarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Jila Panchayat Ke Adhyaksh Tatha Upaadhyaksh Ke Viruddh Avishwaas Prastaav) Rules, 1994 (in short ‘Rules of 1994). It is contended that Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994 unequivocally mandates issuance and service of notice of the proposed meeting upon every elected member of the concerned Gram Panchayat at least 07 clear days before the date fixed for the meeting. In the present case, although the meeting has been fixed for 27.07.2026, no notice has been served either upon the petitioner or upon the elected Panches in the manner prescribed under law, thereby rendering the entire proceedings void and unsustainable. 4. It is further submitted that the impugned action has been orchestrated at the instance of the petitioner's political rivals with the sole objective of removing her from the elected office of Sarpanch on account of personal and political animosity. Learned 7 counsel further contends that the allegations forming the basis of the proposed motion are wholly false, frivolous, and unsupported by any inquiry or verification conducted by the competent authorities. Had the respondents examined the official records and registers of the Gram Panchayat, it would have been evident that all meetings were duly convened in the presence of the elected Panches and that every material decision and development work was undertaken after due intimation to them. It is also submitted that before initiating the proceedings and issuing notice for convening the meeting, the Prescribed Authority was under a statutory obligation to satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the proposal, including verification of the signatures of the members who allegedly supported the motion; however, no such verification was undertaken. The petitioner has also been deliberately deprived of an opportunity to effectively participate in the proceedings, inasmuch as no notice of the proposed meeting has been served upon her, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed upon the decision in Kandhilal Patel v. State of M.P., wherein it was held that where there exists a dispute regarding the service or date of service of notice relating to a no confidence motion, the same cannot be adjudicated without affording the aggrieved party an opportunity to lead evidence and to present a reply. Reliance is also placed upon the Full Bench decision in Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P., 8 wherein it has been authoritatively held that since the passing of a motion of no confidence results in the elected office-bearer vacating an elected office, the principles of natural justice are inherently attracted, and the concerned Sarpanch is entitled to adequate notice, an effective opportunity to participate in the meeting, address the members, and endeavour to regain the confidence of the House. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed as being violative of the statutory provisions as well as the principles of natural justice. The petitioner further craves leave of this Court to urge such other grounds as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State submits that the procedure prescribed under Section 21 of Act of 1993 as well as Rule 3(3) of Rules of 1994 has been duly complied with. It is contended that on perusal of the order-sheets maintained by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority reveals that the Prescribed Authority, after due verification and satisfaction, recorded that all the Panchas had signed the proposal for moving the motion of no confidence and had also affixed their signatures on the order-sheet. It is further submitted that the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority in this regard stands duly recorded in the order-sheet. Learned State counsel further submits that, after ensuring the statutory requirement of seven clear days' notice, the notice dated 13.07.2026 convening the meeting for consideration of the motion of no confidence on 9 27.07.2026 was duly served upon the petitioner, who was then the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Diggi, as well as upon all the concerned Panchas, as is evident from the records. It is, therefore, submitted that the proceedings have been conducted strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and the Rules governing the field, and that no illegality or procedural irregularity, as alleged by the petitioner, has been committed. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator submits that certain documents have been placed on record by way of a covering memo, which, according to him, clearly demonstrate due compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rule 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Upsarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Jila Panchayat Ke Adhyaksh Tatha Upaadhyaksh Ke Viruddh Avishwaas Prastaav) Rules, 1994. It is, therefore, contended that the proceedings initiated for convening the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence are strictly in accordance with law and do not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority, initiated the proceedings for the 10 motion of no confidence only after being satisfied with the proposal submitted before him, which was duly signed by the Panchas and contained allegations of some other irregularities against the petitioner. The order-sheet dated 15.07.2026 further reveals that the Prescribed Authority verified the proposal, recorded his satisfaction regarding its compliance with the statutory requirements, and thereafter appointed Ms. Rajshri Pandey, Tehsildar, Kunda, as the Presiding Officer to conduct the proceedings relating to the motion of no confidence. In such circumstances, the challenge raised by the petitioner to the initiation of the proceedings is devoid of any factual or legal basis. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to what prejudice has been caused to her on account of the alleged procedural irregularities. It is well settled that, in the absence of any established prejudice, mere technical or procedural objections do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 9. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2001) 2 M.P.L.J. 372 has considered this aspect and has held as under :- “12. In this respect mode of service of notice prescribed in Panchayat (Method of Service of notice and document) Rules, 11 1995 (shortly referred as 1995 Rules) need to be noticed. The said rules are to be read for understanding and giving effect to word 'dispatch' used in the latter part of the rule. The different modes prescribed in Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1995 for service of notice include 'giving or tendering the notice or document to the person concerned'. In the absence of notice, giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of the family, sending the same by post under certificate of posting. If the member resides beyond the jurisdiction of Panchayat and his address is known, by sending the same to him by registered post acknowledgment due. The Rules of 1995 also prescribe the substituted mode of service. In the light of the above rules prescribing various modes of service of notice, the word 'dispatch' would mean giving or sending for transmission the notice in the manner prescribed in the Rules of 1995 so as to reasonably ensure its service on the notice. The dispatch of notice for complying the provisions of 12 latter part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of 1994 Rules has to be in one of the prescribed mode indicated for service in the Rules of 1995. If the dispatch of notices is not in the mode prescribed for its service, there would be no proper compliance of the requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994. 13. Construing thus the meaning of word 'dispatch' in latter part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of 1994 Rules, it has to be held that dispatch of notice for effecting service on the members in one of the modes prescribed in Rules of 1995 would be due compliance of the provision. 14. An incidental question arose is whether non-compliance of the second part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994, which we have held as mandatory, would as a necessary corollary invalidate the proceedings held in the meeting called for passing the no- confidence motion. This question has not directly been posed, but as the learned Single Judge appears to have noticed some conflict or cleavage of opinion 13 between several Single Bench decisions of this Court, we find it necessary to express our opinion on the same, 15. The general rule is that non- compliance of mandatory requirement results in nullification of the Act. There are, however, several exceptions to the same. If certain requirements or conditions are provided by statute in the interest of a particular person, the requirements or conditions, although mandatory, may be waived by him if no public interest are involved and in such a case the act done will be valid even if the requirements or conditions have not been performed. This appears to be the reason for learned C. K. Prasad, J. in Dhumadhandin vs. State of M. P., 1997(2) MPLJ 175 = 1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 49 which was followed by R. S. Garg, J., in Mahavir Saket vs. Collector, Rewa, 1998 (2) JLJ 113 for holding that mere non-compliance of first part of the rule in fixing a meeting beyond the prescribed days of the motion of no- confidence would not invalidate the whole proceedings. In case of 14 Dhumadhandin (supra), the Sarpanch did not question the validity of the notice calling the meeting of no-confidence and in fact had taken chance by facing the motion. R. S. Garg, J., in Mahavir Saket (supra) placed reliance on the decision of C. K. Prasad, J., in Dhumadhandin (supra) to up-hold the passing of the no-confidence motion in the adjourned meeting as in the meeting called within the prescribed fifteen days the Presiding Officer was not available. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 permits reference of a dispute to the Collector by Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom a notice of no confidence motion had been passed. The proceedings of the no-confidence motion or other proceedings under the Act are also assailable in this Court as Constitutional Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As has been construed by us, even though second part of the rule requiring dispatch of notice of the meeting to the member is mandatory, yet in every case of challenge to the proceeding of no-confidence 15 motion either before the Collector or this Court, it would still be open to the Collector or this Court to find out whether in a given case non-compliance of any part of the rule has in fact resulted in any failure of justice or has caused any serious prejudice to any of the parties. The general rule is that a mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance and the directory one only substantial. But even where the provision is mandatory, every non-compliance of the same need not necessarily result in nullification of the whole action. In a given situation even for non-fulfilment of mandatory requirement, the authority empowered to take a decision may refuse to nullify the action on the ground that no substantial prejudice had been caused to the party affected or to any other party which would have any other substantial interest in the proceeding. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has also a discretion not to interfere even though a mandatory requirement of law has not been strictly complied with as thereby no serious prejudice or failure of 16 justice has been caused. This is how various Single Bench decisions in which even after finding some infraction of the second part of Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994, the resolution of no-confidence motion passed was not invalidated on the ground that no substantial prejudice thereby was caused to the affected parties. The intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the provisions contained in Section 21 and the Rule 3 (3) framed thereunder. The provisions do evince an intention that a meeting of the no- confidence motion be called within a reasonable period of not later than 15 days and every member has to be informed of the same seven days in advance. A notice of no-confidence motion is required to be moved by not less than 1/3rd of the total number of elected members as required by first Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 and can be lawfully carried by a resolution passed by majority of not less than 4th of the Panchas present and voting and such majority has to be more than 2/3rd of the total number of 17 Panchas constituting the Panchayat in accordance with sub- section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. This being the substance of the provisions under the Act and the rules, a mere non- compliance of second 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 this 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.” 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also considered the issue relating to the service of notice in proceedings for a motion of no confidence in the matter of Pushpa Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. passed in WPC No.3363 of 2023 decided on 25.07.2023. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: “8. Petitioner herself has enclosed copy of notice as Annexure-P/1 along with writ petition filed on 21.07.2023, 18 which shows that copy of notice was received by petitioner prior to the date of filing of writ petition. Meaning thereby, the petitioner got notice of convening of no-confidence motion against her on specified date, place and time. Further, the date of notice shows that notice was issued on 14.07.2203 whereas meeting of no-confidence was fixed on 26.07.2023, which satisfies other requirements also as mentioned in Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1994. Petitioner has not submitted any document or affidavit of other Panchas along with writ petition to substantiate the submission that other Panchas have also not received notice. In absence of any material, the oral submission of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.” 11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, on perusal of the record reveals that the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority has duly complied with the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1993 and Rules of 1994. The proposal for moving the motion of no confidence was duly verified, and upon being satisfied that it was supported by the requisite number of Panchas and fulfilled the statutory requirements, the Prescribed Authority 19 passed the order dated 15.07.2026 in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994. 12. Further, in view of the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhulin Dewangan (supra) , the petitioner has failed to establish that any prejudice has been caused to her on account of the alleged procedural irregularities. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that any mandatory statutory requirement has been violated so as to vitiate the proceedings. Even otherwise, it is well settled that unless substantial prejudice is shown to have been caused to the affected party or to any other person having a substantial interest in the proceedings, the action is not liable to be invalidated merely on the basis of technical or procedural objections. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the proceedings relating to the motion of no confidence. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena