1 CGHC010352192026 2026:CGHC:39910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4648 of 2026 1 - Mahendra Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Late Devcharan Suryavanshi Aged About 37 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kaya, Janpad Panchayat - Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, R/o Village - Kaya, Police Station - Chakarbhatha, Tahsil - Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Pancyat, Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Virendra Prajapati Panchyayt Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kaya, Janpad Panchayat - Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Lavkumar Kaushik Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kaya, Janpad Pancvhayat - Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery) RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV Date: 2026.09.11 19:38:35 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare along with Ms. Shakuntala Ratre, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/09/2026 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the no- confidence motion against the petitioner has been scheduled and the Presiding Officer has been appointed. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing/staying the proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice dated 31.08.2026 for consideration of the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to duly consider and inquire into the complaints submitted by the petitioner concerning the alleged unauthorized use of his signature and seal, Panchayat records and alleged financial irregularities, in accordance with law. 3 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Kumar Singh, CEO Janpad Panchayat, Bilha, Bilaspur and Ms. Aakansha Tripathi, SDO (R) are present before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 31.08.2026, whereby the no-confidence meeting has been scheduled against the petitioner, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations and without properly considering the complaints earlier submitted by the petitioner against respondent Nos.6 and 7 regarding unauthorized use of his signatures and seal, non-handing over of Panchayat records and alleged financial irregularities. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being an elected Sarpanch, is sought to be dislodged through the no-confidence proceedings for extraneous and collateral considerations, despite having approached the competent authorities regarding the aforesaid grievances. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned order dated 31.08.2026 and the consequential no- confidence proceedings be quashed/set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order dated 31.08.2026 has been passed in accordance with 4 law and due procedure. The allegations of mala fides and violation of natural justice are unfounded. The complaints relied upon by the petitioner have no bearing on the no-confidence proceedings. Hence, no interference is warranted and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts brought on record, it appears that the petitioner had earlier submitted complaints before the competent authorities alleging, inter alia, that the former Sarpanch was creating unnecessary hurdles in the functioning of the Gram Panchayat and has allegedly forged the seal/signature of the petitioner and had threatened the petitioner with implication in a criminal case and compelled him to resign from the post of Sarpanch. Taking note of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court had called for the concerned SDO (Revenue), Bilha and the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bilha. The CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bilha has submitted that, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, an Enquiry Committee has already been constituted and the matter is under enquiry. However, the Enquiry Committee has not submitted its report till date. 7. Learned SDO (Revenue), Bilha submits that certain elected Panchas had approached her expressing their intention to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioner and, on the basis of the application 5 submitted by them, proceedings were initiated. However, on perusal of the said application purportedly filed under Rule 3(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up- Sarpanch Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, this Court finds that the application itself is vague and does not disclose specific and cogent grounds warranting initiation of the proceedings in the manner undertaken by the respondent authority. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, particularly when the allegations raised by the petitioner against the former Sarpanch and others are already under enquiry and the Enquiry Committee is yet to submit its report, this Court is of the considered opinion that the no- confidence proceedings initiated merely on the basis of such a vague application (Annexure P/5) cannot be permitted to continue as the same will substantially prejudice the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Full Bench of the Madhya Pradhesh High Court in the matter of Bhulin Dewangan vs State of MP & Others {2000 (4) MPHT 69} and it will also affect the fair conclusion of the proceedings. Thus, the impugned proceedings, cannot be sustained in their present form and are liable to be quashed. 9. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authorities from proceeding afresh, as the No-Confidence Motion has not failed on merits during the proceedings. In this regard, this Court has made it amply clear in the matter of Smt. Neelima Sahu 6 vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WPC No. 4281 of 2026, decided on 20.08.2026 as it was contended by counsel for the petitioner therein on the strength of Section 21 (3) (iii) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 that once the first no confidence motion has been rejected, the second no confidence motion cannot lie within one year thereon. However, the first no confidence motion has to be “rejected” to attract the embargo of one year. In the case of Smt. Neelima Sahu, meeting of second no confidence motion against the petitioner therein was held to be in accordance with law as earlier no confidence motion could not take place due to technical defects which was not rejected in the earlier occasion. The said circumstances also apply to the present case as the proceedings of no confidence motion scheduled to be held on 11.09.2026 is held to be not in accordance with law by this Court. Thus, It is made clear that quashing of the proceedings on the aforesaid technical ground shall not preclude the competent authority from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law on the basis of a proper application fulfilling the requirements of the applicable Rules. The observations made herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of any future proceedings. 10. The concerned CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bilha is directed to ensure that the Enquiry Committee completes the pending enquiry and 7 submits its report within a period of one week from today before the competent authority. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.08.2026 and the consequential no-confidence proceedings initiated against the petitioner are hereby quashed. 12. The concerned CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bilha shall ensure compliance with the direction contained in this order. 13. The petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi