Chattisgarh High Court
Bhagwan Das Garhewal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 January, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:2983
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 464 of 2024
Bhagwan Das Garhewal S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Garhewal Aged About 45
Years President, Municipal Council Janjgir-Naila, R/o Ward No. 23,
Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban
Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
2. The District Collector Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
3. Ashutosh Goswami S/o Shri Bhaskar Giri Goswami Aged About 41
Years Vice President, Municipal Council Janjgir Naila, District Janjgir
Champa (C.G.)
4. Amit Yadav S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Yadav Aged About 39 Years
Councillor, Ward No. 06, Municipal Council Janjgir Naila, District
Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
5. Vivek Singh @ Vikky S/o Shri Kuleshwar Singh Aged About 39 Years
Councillor, Ward No. 08, Municipal Council Janjgir Naila, District
Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
6. Sudhir Agrawal S/o Shri Puranchand Agrawal Aged About 49 Years
Councillor, Ward No. 09, Municipal Council Janjgir-Naila, District
Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
7. Jitendra Dewangan S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Dewangan Aged About
32 Years Councillor, Ward No. 11, Municipal Council Janjgir-Naila,
District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
8. Umesh Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Chhedilal Rathore Aged About 41
Years Councillor, Ward No. 12, Municipal Council Janjgir-Naila,
District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
9. Smt. Janki Kahra W/o Shri Jeevan Lal Kahra Aged About 45 Years
Councillor, Ward No. 13, Municipal Council Janjgir-Naila, District
Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
10. Hitesh Yadav S/o Shri Siyaram Yadav Aged About 42 Years
Councillor, Ward No. 16, Municipal Council Janjgir-Naila, District
Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
11. Smt. Urmila Nirmalkar W/o Shri Pushpendra Nirmalkar Aged About 37
Years Councillor, Ward No. 19, Municipal Council Janjgir-Naila, District
Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
12. Smt. Bhuri Bai W/o Kartik Ram Ratrey Aged About 48 Years
Councillor, Ward No. 21, Municipal Council Janjgir-Naila, District
Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:2983
2
13. Smt. Anita Kahra W/o Guddu Kahra Aged About 35 Years Councillor,
Ward No. 23, Municipal Council Janjgir-Naila, District Janjgir Champa
(C.G.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, G.A. For Respondents No.3 to 13 : Shri Anish Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.01.2024
1) The petitioner who is the president of Municipal Council, Janjgir Naila, District Janjgir-Champa has challenged the notice dated 18.01.2024 issued by the prescribed authority/Collector whereby the date of No Confidence Motion has been adjourned from 22nd January 2024 to 30th January 2024.
2) The facts of the present case are that in the 2019 election, the petitioner was elected as Councilor from Ward No. 22 of the Municipal Council, Janjgir-Naila and the elected Councilors chose him as the President. Due to the petitioner's successful facilitation of various projects sanctioned by the Government of Chhattisgarh, respondent No.3 - Ashutosh Goswami, Vice-President of Municipal Council, filed a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner with respondent No.2/District Collector, Janjgir-Champa. The petitioner upon learning of the No Confidence Motion through a newspaper report immediately submitted an application/representation to the Collector on 05.01.2024. In his application, the petitioner submitted that the No Confidence Motion signed by 10 other councillors is based on false accusations, and as such, should not be considered without prior investigation. The petitioner requested the Collector to inquire into the matter before proceeding with the No Confidence Motion. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:2983 3
3) The petitioner asserted that the allegations levelled by the private respondents in the motion of the no-confidence are demonstrably false. The respondent Collector without considering the representation of the petitioner issued a notice for the No Confidence Motion vide order dated 09.01.2024 where the meeting for the No Confidence Motion was scheduled on 22.01.2024 at 12:00 pm in the office of Municipal Council, Janjgir-Naila. Thereafter, the Collector/prescribed Authority without explaining anything rescheduled the No Confidence Motion on 18.01.2024, setting the new date for 30.01.2024, which raises serious concerns about its legality and impartiality. Under Section 43A of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, there is no provision for modifying the date of the No Confidence Motion once it has been fixed.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no reason or occasion for the prescribed authority to adjourn the date of the meeting from the 22nd of January, 2024 to the 30th of January, 2024. He would further submit that just to favour the councillors who brought the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner, this decision has been taken. He would also submit that the prescribed authority has not assigned any reason for such adjournment. He further contended that in the various judgments where the date of the meeting of the No Confidence Motion was adjourned, this Court held that there must be a specific reason for postponement or adjournment of the No Confidence Motion.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Majhno Bai vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. in WPC No. 5147 of 2022. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered by the M.P. High Court in the matter of Muku Bai vs. State of M.P. and Others reported in 1998 (2) MPLJ 661. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:2983 4
5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 13 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that on 22.01.2024 there was a half-day holiday on account of consecration of Ram Lalla in Ayodhya and a notification in this regard was issued by the State Government. They would further submit that the officers were busy with programmes held at the local level and they had to attend the live telecast of the program of the Chief Minister of the State. They would also submit that though this reason has not been stated in the notice dated 18.01.2024, that is the only reason for the adjournment. They would further contend that the petitioner has to establish prejudice caused in adjourning the date of the No Confidence Motion. They would also contend that the motion of no- confidence is being carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 43A of the Municipalities Act, 1961.
6) I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on record.
7) The only issue involved in the present matter is whether the prescribed authority can adjourn the date of the meeting for the No Confidence Motion.
8) In the matter of Majhno Bai (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed in paragraph 14 as under:-
"14. True it is that the statute mandates a meeting to be convened within 15 days but in an exceptional circumstance where given the conditions prevalent it was practically impossible to hold the meeting. That if under that circumstances it stands adjourned, the action on the part of the authorities cannot be said to be contrary to law nor can it be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions. It is also required to be taken note of the fact that the petitioner as such has not been able to show any substantive prejudice that would be caused to her if the meeting is held on 25.11.2022 in stead of 15.11.2022 the date on which it was earlier fixed. In the absence of any substantial prejudice caused to the petitioner this Court finds it difficult to interfere with the impugned order Annexure P-1."
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:2983 5
9) In the matter of Muku Bai (supra), the Hon'ble M.P. High Court observed in paragraph 11 as under:-
"11. In this connection, a reference may be made to the Division Bench decision of this Court given in the case of Gajpatilal Chandrakar v. State of M. P. decided on 21st June, 1995 in W. P. No. 944/95, wherein the question was whether special meeting of the Municipal Corporation Under Section 28 can be adjourned or not. In that case, the Division Bench held that Under Section 28 of the Municipal Corporation Act, Special meeting can be adjourned. After examining the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, it was observed :
"This contention has no merit as mentioned above that there is no exception made Under Section 31 that the meeting convened Under Section 28 cannot be adjourned. Hence, we do not find any merit in this argument that the meeting convened Under Section 28 would not be adjourned and consequently, the election of the committees cannot be said to be illegal."
Therefore, it is wrong to say that once the meeting is called for debate of no-confidence motion, it cannot be adjourned. However, the view taken in Hargovind's case (supra), which is contrary to the view taken by the Division Bench, cannot be said to be a good law."
10) Coming to the facts of the present case, the earlier date for the No Confidence motion was specified on 22.01.2024 and thereafter, vide notice dated 18.01.2024 it was postponed to 30.01.2024.
11) From a perusal of the other documents, it appears that the provisions of Section 43A of the Act, 1961 have been complied with by the prescribed authority. Further, there is no averment with regard to non- compliance of other provisions and also there is no pleading in the writ petition.
12) In the matter of Majhno Bai (supra), it is observed by this Court that the authority ought to have recorded the reason for the postponement of the date of the No Confidence Motion and except in exceptional cases, the meeting cannot be adjourned. In the matter of Muku Bai (supra), where the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the matter of Gajpatilal Chandrakar vs. the State of M.P. decided on 21st June 1995 in W.P. No. 944 of 1995 has been relied on, it was observed that there is no exception made under the Act that the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:2983 6 meeting convened cannot be adjourned. From a perusal of the order (Annexure- P/1) dated 18.01.2024, it is clear that no reason has been assigned by the Collector for adjournment however, the petitioner has failed to plead or prove the prejudice caused to him by such adjournment.
13) Taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court as well as by the High Court of M.P., in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out calling for any interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi