The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that procedural irregularities in no-confidence motion proceedings under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, do not automatically invalidate the process unless substantial prejudice is demonstrated by the affected party. This judgment underscores the distinction between mandatory and directory provisions in local governance statutes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Seema Banjare, was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Diggi, Janpad Panchayat Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, in the Panchayat Elections held in February 2025. A motion of no confidence was initiated against her by the Up-Sarpanch and certain Panchas, leading to the issuance of a notice dated 15.07.2026 for a meeting scheduled on 27.07.2026 to consider the motion.
Key Facts
- On 13.07.2026, the Up-Sarpanch and 13 Panchas submitted a notice under Rule 3(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Rules, 1994 (Rules of 1994), proposing a no-confidence motion against the petitioner.
- The proposal alleged misappropriation of funds and other irregularities by the petitioner.
- The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authority, Simga (Respondent No. 3), verified the signatures of the 13 Panchas on the proposal and recorded satisfaction in the order-sheet dated 13.07.2026.
- The Prescribed Authority issued the impugned notice dated 15.07.2026, convening a meeting on 27.07.2026 for consideration of the no-confidence motion.
- The petitioner contends that the notice was not served in the manner prescribed under law. She alleges it was delivered through an unauthorized person and communicated to her only via WhatsApp on 21.07.2026.
- The petitioner argues that the mandatory requirement of seven clear days' notice under Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994 was not fulfilled, as she received the notice only six days before the meeting.
Procedural History
- 15.07.2026: Impugned notice issued by Respondent No. 3.
- 21.07.2026: Petitioner allegedly received the notice via WhatsApp.
- 27.07.2026: Scheduled date for the no-confidence motion meeting.
- 27.07.2026: Present writ petition (WPC No. 3872 of 2026) filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- Quashing of the impugned notice dated 15.07.2026 and all subsequent proceedings.
- A direction to allow her to continue functioning as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Diggi.
- Any other relief deemed fit by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the alleged procedural irregularities in the service of notice for the no-confidence motion, particularly the failure to serve the notice in the prescribed manner and within the stipulated seven clear days, render the entire proceedings invalid under Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. K. Dewangan, submitted:
- The notice convening the meeting was never duly served upon the petitioner as per the prescribed mode under the Rules of 1994.
- The Prescribed Authority failed to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the Panchas on the proposal dated 13.07.2026 before issuing the impugned notice.
- The mandatory requirement of seven clear days' notice was not complied with, as the petitioner received the notice only on 21.07.2026.
- The notice was merely forwarded via WhatsApp, which does not constitute valid service under the Rules.
- The entire proceedings are in violation of Section 21 of the Act of 1993 and Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994, and thus liable to be quashed.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, submitted:
- The procedure prescribed under Section 21 of the Act of 1993 and Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994 was duly complied with.
- The order-sheet dated 13.07.2026 records that the Prescribed Authority verified the signatures of all 13 Panchas and was satisfied with the proposal.
- The notice dated 15.07.2026 was duly served upon the petitioner and all concerned Panchas, as evidenced by the records.
- The statutory requirement of seven clear days' notice was fulfilled, and the meeting was scheduled for 27.07.2026.
- No illegality or procedural irregularity was committed, and the writ petition is devoid of merit.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the compliance with Section 21 of the Act of 1993 and Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994, which govern the procedure for no-confidence motions against Sarpanchs. The Court noted that the Prescribed Authority had verified the proposal and recorded satisfaction regarding the signatures of the 13 Panchas in the order-sheet dated 13.07.2026. The Authority also appointed a Presiding Officer to conduct the proceedings.
The Court relied on the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhulin Dewangan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001) 2 M.P.L.J. 372, which held that while the requirement of dispatching notice under Rule 3(3) is mandatory, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the proceedings unless it results in substantial prejudice or failure of justice. The Court observed:
"The general rule is that a mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance and the directory one only substantial. But even where the provision is mandatory, every non-compliance of the same need not necessarily result in nullification of the whole action. In a given situation even for non-fulfilment of mandatory requirement, the authority empowered to take a decision may refuse to nullify the action on the ground that no substantial prejudice had been caused to the party affected or to any other party which would have any other substantial interest in the proceeding."
The Court also referred to a coordinate bench decision in Pushpa Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (WPC No. 3363 of 2023, decided on 25.07.2023), where it was held that if the petitioner received the notice and was aware of the date, time, and place of the meeting, the procedural requirements were substantially complied with.
In the present case, the Court found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any substantial prejudice caused by the alleged procedural irregularities. The records showed that the Prescribed Authority had complied with the statutory requirements, and the petitioner had received the notice, albeit via WhatsApp.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the no-confidence motion proceedings were valid. The Court found no violation of Section 21 of the Act of 1993 or Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994 that would vitiate the proceedings. The petitioner failed to establish that the alleged procedural defects caused any substantial prejudice or failure of justice. The impugned notice dated 15.07.2026 and the scheduled meeting on 27.07.2026 were upheld.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Not Absolute
- Courts will not invalidate no-confidence motion proceedings solely on technical or procedural grounds unless substantial prejudice is demonstrated.
- The distinction between mandatory and directory provisions must be carefully examined, as not all mandatory requirements will lead to automatic invalidation if non-compliance does not cause prejudice.
Verification of Signatures Is Critical
- Prescribed Authorities must ensure that proposals for no-confidence motions are duly signed by the requisite number of Panchas and that their signatures are verified.
- The order-sheet recording the Authority’s satisfaction is crucial evidence of compliance with statutory requirements.
Service of Notice Must Be Substantial
- While strict compliance with service rules is ideal, courts may uphold proceedings if the affected party received the notice and was aware of the meeting details.
- Alternative modes of communication, such as WhatsApp, may not constitute valid service but can be considered if the party was not prejudiced by the manner of service.
Precedents Guide Discretion
- The Full Bench decision in Bhulin Dewangan v. State of Madhya Pradesh establishes that non-compliance with mandatory provisions does not automatically invalidate proceedings unless it results in prejudice.
- Courts retain discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution to refuse interference if no substantial injustice is caused.
