1 CGHC010391312026 2026:CGHC:42839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5055 of 2026 1 - Smt. Maheshwari Verma W/o Shri Rakesh Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o Piprahi Village Panchayat Sarkipar, Tahsil Balodabazar Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Balodabazar Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) 4 - Shri Hamesh Kumar Sahu Naib Tehsildar, Balodabazar Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) Appointed As Presiding Officer For The No- Confidence Meeting. 5 - Smt. Bindeshwari Verma Up- Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) 6 - Shri Kuleshwar Dhruv Panch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Neetu Dhruv Panch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) 8 - Smt. Anusuya Sahu Panch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) 9 - Shri Santaram Ghutalhere Panch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) 10 - Smt. Manju Purena Panch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.10.03 14:10:26 +0530 2 11 - Smt. Yamini Mandale Panch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) 12 - Shri Rajendra Verma Panch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) 13 - Shri Anil Kumar Dhruv Panch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) 14 - Shri Shantilal Patre Panch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) 15 - Smt. Rekha Bai Dhruv Panch Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha and Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocates. For State/respondent : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy GA. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/10/2026 1. This Petition is directed against the initiation and continuation of the no- confidence proceedings against the petitioner, an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, and particularly against the notice dated 24.09.2026 issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with Rule 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat ke Sarpanch Tatha Up- Sarpanch Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, whereby a meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion against the petitioner has been fixed for 04.10.2026 at 11:30 am at Gram Panchayat Bhawan, Sarkipar. 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings emanate from the no-confidence proposal dated 21.09.2026 submitted by Respondent No.5/Up-Sarpanch along with ten other Panchas. The said proposal contains vague and general allegations against the petitioner regarding alleged non-provision of accounts, non- consultation with Panchas, failure to take interest in Panchayat works, alleged misuse of Panchayat funds and alleged failure to discharge her duties as Sarpanch, without disclosing any specific date, transaction, amount, work, resolution, account or other particulars in support thereof. 3. He submits that it is the specific case of the petitioner that immediately prior to the initiation of the aforesaid no-confidence proceedings, the petitioner had, on 17.09.2026, submitted a complaint before the competent Revenue Authority regarding illegal encroachment over Government land and construction of houses thereon by certain Panchas/office-bearers of Gram Panchayat Sarkipar. In the said complaint, allegations of encroachment were specifically raised against Respondent No.12 in respect of Khasra No.243/1, Respondent No.13 in respect of Khasra No.602, Respondent No.5 in respect of Khasra No.243/1, Respondent No.6 in respect of Khasra No.38 and Respondent No.10 in respect of Khasra No.17/1, and appropriate action for removal of the alleged encroachments was sought. Significantly, within four days of the aforesaid complaint, i.e. on 21.09.2026, the very persons against whom the petitioner had raised the aforesaid grievance, namely Respondent Nos.5, 6, 10, 12 and 13, joined with other Panchas in submitting the no-confidence proposal against the petitioner. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he seeks judicial review of the impugned proceedings on the ground that the no-confidence proposal is founded upon vague and omnibus allegations, lacks specific factual particulars, and has been initiated in circumstances giving rise to a serious apprehension of collateral/retaliatory exercise of the statutory mechanism. The petitioner further challenges the consequential action of the respondent authorities, including the notice dated 24.09.2026 fixing the meeting for 04.10.2026, as being contrary to law, suffering from non- application of mind and liable to be interfered with in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance in the decision of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WPC No.4648 of 2026 decided on 11.09.2026 whereby this Court considered a no-confidence proposal containing vague and unsubstantiated allegations and held that an application which does not disclose specific and cogent grounds cannot be permitted to form the basis for continuation of such proceedings. The said decision further recognized the relevance of surrounding circumstances where complaints by the elected officer bearer preceded the no-confidence proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that no confidence motion against the petitioner has been initiated on an application dated 21.09.2026 submitted by the 11 panchs alleging therein that the petitioner/Sarpanch is not doing the work of Gram Panchayat in accordance with law. The Up-Sarpanch and other panchs are being consulted by him while taking 5 decisions. Sarpanch is not maintaining the account books of the Gram Panchayat and misuse of financial capital by her. The Up-Sarpanch and other panchs also questioned the Sarpanch/ petitioner about her conduct on which, she assured that she will consult them with the matters of Gram Panchayat, but she did not do so. All the 11 members/panchs of Gram Panchayat have given their statement on affidavit which was duly verified by the SDO ( Revenue ) Balodabazar and after due verification of the signatures of the members, SDO (Revenue) initiated the proceedings which cannot be said to be illegal. The SDO (Revenue) Balodabazar appointed Naib Tehsildar Balodabazar as Chairperson of the no-confidence motion and fixed the meeting on 04.10.2026 at 11:30 am in Gram Panchayat Sarkipar. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it is the case of the petitioner that the no confidence motion against her is an action totally founded to retaliate against the petitioner as she vide letter dated 17.09.2026 made a complaint to SDO (Revenue), Balodabazar that private respondents Nos.12- Rajendra Verma, Respondent No.13- Anil Kumar Dhruv, Respondent No.5-Bindeshwari Verma, Respondent No.6-Kuleshwar Dhruv, Respondent No.10 Manju Purena who are Panchs have illegally encroached the government land and such an encroachment is required to be removed. 8. During the course of hearing, learned State counsel was specifically directed to obtain instructions regarding the authenticity of the complaint submitted by the petitioner and the allegations of encroachment made 6 therein. Upon obtaining instructions, learned State counsel submitted that, upon verification, it appeared that illegal encroachment had in fact been made. 9. The aforesaid circumstance assumes significance. The complaint dated 17.09.2026 was made by the petitioner against certain Panchs, and immediately thereafter, on 21.09.2026, the said Panchs joined with other members in submitting the no-confidence proposal against the petitioner. Further, it has been admitted before this Court that the complaint made by the petitioner has not, till date, been subjected to any final enquiry and the alleged encroachments have not been removed. 10.The contents of the no-confidence proposal dated 21.09.2026 have also been perused. The allegations made therein are that the petitioner is not furnishing complete accounts to the Gram Panchayat, is not consulting the Up-Sarpanch and other Panchs in relation to the affairs of the Gram Panchayat, is not taking interest in the work assigned to her and has misused the financial resources of the Gram Panchayat. It is also alleged that despite assuring the Panchs that they would be consulted, the petitioner did not act accordingly. 11.However, except for the aforesaid general allegations, the proposal does not disclose any specific instance, transaction, amount, work, resolution, date or other material particulars demonstrating alleged misappropriation or misuse of Panchayat funds. No specific material has been brought on record before this Court to substantiate the allegation of financial misappropriation. 12.In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the proximity between 7 the petitioner's complaint dated 17.09.2026 and the no-confidence proposal dated 21.09.2026, coupled with the fact that several of the persons against whom the complaint was made subsequently became proposers of the no-confidence motion, cannot be completely disregarded. 13.It is also significant that, despite the complaint made by the petitioner regarding alleged encroachment over Government land, no enquiry had been completed till the initiation of the present proceedings. The State, upon being directed by this Court, has itself indicated that the allegations of encroachment appear to have substance. 14.In such circumstances, before permitting the statutory mechanism of no- confidence proceedings to proceed, the competent authority was required to examine the surrounding circumstances and satisfy itself that the proposal was founded upon genuine and legally relevant grounds and was not merely a consequence of the complaint made by the petitioner against the concerned Panchs. 15.The SDO (Revenue), while exercising the statutory jurisdiction in relation to a no-confidence motion, cannot act merely as a conduit or post office. The authority is required to apply its mind to the material placed before it and to examine the relevant circumstances before permitting the statutory process to proceed. 16.In the present case, the proposal contains only general allegations without specific material in support of the allegation of financial misappropriation or other misconduct. At the same time, the surrounding circumstances disclose that the petitioner had, immediately prior to the 8 proposal, lodged a complaint concerning alleged encroachment upon Government land against several of the persons who subsequently joined in moving the no-confidence proposal. 17.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the no-confidence proceedings on the basis of the proposal dated 21.09.2026 cannot be sustained in its present form. 18. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings initiated pursuant to the no- confidence proposal dated 21.09.2026, including the consequential notice dated 24.09.2026 fixing the meeting for 04.10.2026 at 11:30 a.m., are hereby quashed/set aside. 19.The concerned SDO (Revenue), Balodabazar, is directed to examine and adjudicate the complaint dated 17.09.2026 submitted by the petitioner alleging illegal encroachment over Government land by the concerned Panchs/private respondents. After conducting the necessary enquiry, the SDO (Revenue) shall submit an appropriate report before the competent Revenue Authority for further action in accordance with law. 20.In the event the enquiry establishes encroachment over Government land, the competent authority shall take necessary action for removal of such encroachment in accordance with law. 21.However, fresh proceedings of No-confidence motion in accordance with law is not barred. 22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Avinash Judge