1 CGHC010360672026 2026:CGHC:41130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4812 of 2026 1 - Smt. Shyama Bai Markande D/o Milandas, Aged About 56 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat - Bhoinapar, Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur C.G. 2 - The Commissioner, Durg Division, Commisioner - Office, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Additional Collector Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Balod District Balod (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Balod District Balod (C.G.) 6 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) 7 - Tameshwar Mahammala, S/o Biselal Panch Ward - 5, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) 8 - Smt. Damin Bai Sonwani, W/o Shri Yugalkishore, Panch Ward - 1, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) 9 - Smt. Devantin Bai, W/o Shri Janak Ram, Panch Ward - 2, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) 10 - Smt. Shakoon Bai, W/o Shri Madhur Ram, Panch Ward - 3, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) 11 - Smt. Neera Bai Chandravanshi, W/o Shri Bed Ram Chandravanshi, Panch Ward - 4, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2026.10.03 17:22:07 +0530 2 12 - Shri Toman Lal Chandravanshi, S/o Shri Paras Ram, Panch Ward - 6, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) 13 - Shri Neel Kamal Sahu, S/o Shri Jethu Ram, Panch Ward - 7, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) 14 - Smt. Mohani Mahilange, W/o Shri Tarachand Mahilange, Panch Ward - 8, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) 15 - Shri Manoj Kumar Banjare, S/o Shri Heru Ram, Panch Ward - 9, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) 16 - Smt. Saadhna Banjare, W/o Shri Rajnikant Banjare, Panch Ward - 10, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) 17 - Shri Manak Das, S/o Shri Milan Das, Panch Ward - 11, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) 18 - Smt. Chemin Kanwar, W/o Shri Chunni Lal Panch Ward - 12, Panch Gram Panchayat Bhoinapar Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Deputy GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2026 1. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case for its kind perusal, in the ends of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may be kind enough to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2026, passed by the respondent No. 2 (Ann. P/1) and the actions consequent thereto, in the ends of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble High Court may be kind enough to issue a writ, order or direction in the 3 nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside the order dated 07.07.2026 passed by Resp. no. 6 (Ann. P/3) and the actions consequent thereto, in the ends of justice. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble High Court may be kind enough to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities produce the entire records related to the proceedings of the no confidence motion against the petitioner dated 15.04.2026, in the ends of justice. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble High Court may be kind enough to issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition, in the ends of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, for conducting the no-confidence motion was not followed by the private respondents. He further submits that the Commissioner has mechanically stayed the reasoned order passed by the Additional Collector, whereby the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was declared null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure. 3. Learned State counsel has no objection if the pending revision petition of the petitioner is considered and decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that an appeal was preferred against the no-confidence motion before the concerned Additional Collector, who, vide order dated 4 21.05.2026, set aside the proceedings relating to the no-confidence motion. The said order has thereafter been challenged before the concerned Commissioner by way of revision, wherein the Commissioner, while entertaining the revision, has passed an interim order staying the effect and operation of the order dated 21.05.2026 passed by the concerned Collector, Balod. The matter is presently pending adjudication on merits before the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg (C.G.). Once the matter is pending before the concerned Commissioner and a discretionary interim order of stay has already been passed, no interference with the said order is warranted at this stage. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wander Ltd vs. Antox India (P) Ltd. reported in 1990 Supp SCC 727 has held that any appeal against the order granting or refusing temporary injunction is an appeal against exercise of discretion by the trial court and the appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely, and observed as under: - 13. On a consideration of the matter, we are afraid, the appellate bench fell into error on two important propositions. The first is a misdirection in regard to the very scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order. The second pertains to the infirmities in the ratiocination as to the quality of Antox's alleged user of the trademark on which the passing-off action is founded. We shall deal with these two separately. 5 14 The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, (1960) 3 SCR 713: "... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton, 1942 AC 130...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’." The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle." 6. The aforesaid view taken by the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. (supra) has been followed subsequently in the matter of Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited v. S.L. Vaswani and another reported 6 in (2010) 2 SCC 142 and further followed in the matters of Purshottam Vishandas Raheja and another v. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja (Dead) Through LRs and others reported in (2011) 6 SCC 73 and Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 221. 7. In light of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and having regard to the fact that the matter is pending for final adjudication before the concerned Commissioner, Durg, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition, while setting aside the order dated 21.05.2026. 8. Accordingly the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, is directed to decide the matter on merits, as the matter relates to the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Since the revision petition has been pending since 25.06.2026, the concerned Commissioner is directed to consider and decide Case No.457/अ-89/Year 2025-26 in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Priyanka