1 CGHC010322582026 2026:CGHC:36533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4314 of 2026 1 - Sanjay Kumar Darro S/o Late Dharam Singh Darro, Aged About 45 Years Sarpanch Of Village Panchayat Hatkongera Janpad Panchayat Kanker District North Bastar Kanker C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector District North Baster Kanker C.G. 3 - The Sub Division Officer, (Revenue) Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker C.G. 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kanker District North Bastar Kanker C.G. 5 - Madhusudan Jain Panch Of Ward No. 01, Village Panchayat Hatkongera, 6 - Sarojani Dewangann Panch Of Ward No. 2 Village Panchayat Hatkongera. 7 - Aneshwari Kunjam Panch Of Ward No. 3 Village Panchayat Hatkongera. 8 - Vimla Netam Panch Of Ward No.4, Village Panchayat Hatkongera. 9 - Babita Nag Panch Of Ward No. 5 Village Panchayat Hatkongera. 10 - Itwaru Kawachi, Panch Of Ward No. 6 Village Panchayat Hatkongera. 11 - Kalpana Darro Panch Of Ward No. 7, Village Panchayat RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hatkongera. 12 - Ganeshiya Netam Panch Of Ward No. 8, Village Panchayat Hatkongera. 13 - Vaidyaraj Darro Panch Of Ward No. 9 Village Panchayat Hatkongera. 14 - Santoshi Dewangan Panch Of Ward No. 10 Village Panchayat Hatkongera. 15 - Lalita Sori Panch Of Ward No. 14 Village Panchayat Hatkongera. Respondent No. 05 To 15 R/o Village Panchayat Hatkongera, Janpad Panchayat Kanker District North, Baster Kanker C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned notice of no confidence motion dated 7.8.2026 issued by respondent no.3 ANNEXURE P/1 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to set aside of the initiate by the entire proceeding of no confidence motion respondent no.3 in pursuance of notice dated 23.7.2026 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in 3 the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice dated 07.08.2026 issued by respondent No. 3, the prescribed authority, initiating proceedings for a no-confidence motion against the petitioner, who is the elected Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Hatkongera, Janpad Panchayat Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.). It is submitted that on 23.07.2026, eleven Panchas submitted a no- confidence motion against the petitioner before respondent No. 3, pursuant to which notice was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his reply denying the allegations. Learned counsel submits that the proceedings are contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 3(3) of the 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, as the date fixed for the no-confidence motion was beyond the prescribed period. It is further submitted that, out of the present strength of fourteen elected members, notice was issued only to twelve members; the signatures of the Panchas were not verified by the prescribed authority; a joint notice was issued instead of individual notices; and the name and designation of the Presiding Officer were not mentioned in the notice. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's reply denying the allegations was not duly considered before proceeding with the no-confidence motion. It is, therefore, 4 contended that the impugned notice and the consequential proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1994 and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits the respondent authorities have duly followed the procedure prescribed under the applicable Rules while issuing the impugned notice for convening the meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has been afforded the requisite period of seven days’ notice, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Rules, and therefore, no procedural illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the impugned notice. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner shall have full opportunity to participate in the proceedings relating to the no-confidence motion and to place his defence and submissions before the competent authority. In view of the same, it is contended that the impugned notice does not warrant any interference by this Court and the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having pursued the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the State that the respondent authorities have followed the procedure prescribed under the applicable Rules while issuing the impugned notice and that the petitioner has been afforded the 5 requisite seven days’ notice as contemplated under the Rules, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned notice at this stage. The petitioner shall be at liberty to participate in the proceedings of the no-confidence motion and place his defence and all relevant submissions before the competent authority. 6. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat