A secretary’s improper signature does not invalidate a no-confidence motion supported by requisite elected members.

The petitioner, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kohpani, challenged the notice dated 17 August 2026 initiating a no-confidence motion against him, scheduled for 25 August 2026.

He contended that the application initiating the motion had also been signed by the Panchayat Secretary, who was neither an elected Panch nor an elected member of the Gram Panchayat.

According to the petitioner, under Rule 3(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Rules, 1994, only elected members could validly support such a motion, and the Secretary’s signature could not be counted towards the statutory requirement of one-third elected members.

The State argued that the application had been signed by the elected Panchas and Up-Sarpanch and had been duly considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

The petitioner also received the notice within the prescribed period of seven clear days.

Whether the inclusion of the Panchayat Secretary’s signature, although he was not an elected member of the Gram Panchayat, invalidated the initiation of the no-confidence motion under Rule 3(1) of the 1994 Rules.

Whether the impugned notice initiating the no-confidence motion warranted interference in writ jurisdiction on the ground of procedural non-compliance or prejudice to the petitioner.

The Court applied Section 21 of the applicable Panchayat legislation and Rule 3(1) of the 1994 Rules, under which a no-confidence motion must be supported by not less than one-third of the total number of elected members.

It relied principally on the Full Bench decision in Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P., 2000 (4) MPHT 69, which held that although statutory requirements may be mandatory, every infraction does not automatically nullify the proceedings; the court must examine whether the non-compliance caused serious prejudice or resulted in failure of justice.

The statutory scheme also requires reasonable dispatch in convening the meeting and service of notice upon members within the prescribed period.

The Court assumed, for the purpose of argument, that the Panchayat Secretary was not competent to support or initiate the motion.

Nevertheless, it found from the record that the application was independently supported by the elected Panchas and the Up-Sarpanch and had been considered by the competent Sub-Divisional Officer.

Consequently, once the requisite support of the elected members was otherwise available, the Secretary’s additional signature did not invalidate the application.

Applying Bhulin Dewangan, the Court held that the petitioner had not established any substantial prejudice or failure of justice arising from the Secretary’s signature.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had received the notice within seven clear days, and therefore no procedural prejudice was demonstrated on that account either.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to face the no-confidence motion in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the no-confidence motion itself.