Mandatory Seven-Day Notice Period and Procedural Compliance for No-Confidence Motion are Condition Precedent for Validity

The petitioner, an elected Up-Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Tamaseoni, challenged the proceedings for a no-confidence motion initiated against him.

On 18.03.2026 and 01.04.2026, applications for his removal were submitted to the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO).

The SDO issued a notice on 29.04.2026, scheduling the no-confidence meeting for the very next day, 30.04.2026.

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking to quash the notice and proceedings, alleging that the SDO failed to verify signatures under the Rules and provided less than the mandatory seven-day notice period.

During the hearing, the State counsel informed the Court that the impugned notice dated 29.04.2026 had been recalled.

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 29.04.2026 was legally sustainable given the lack of the mandatory seven-day notice period.

2. Whether the proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements of verification and recording of satisfaction by the prescribed authority.

The Court's proceedings were governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat ke Sarpanch tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat tatha Zila Panchayat ke Adhyaksha tatha Up-Adhyaksha ke viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Rules, 1994.

Rules 3(1) to 3(3) mandate that the prescribed authority must record satisfaction regarding the authenticity of the application and signatures.

The rules require a mandatory minimum of "seven clear days’ notice" before convening a meeting for a no-confidence motion.

The court noted the precedent set in Smt. Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P. & Others, which emphasizes strict compliance with these procedural mandates.

The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities acted with "undue haste" and "procedural irregularities" by issuing a notice on one day and scheduling the meeting for the следующий (next) day, effectively granting less than 24 hours' notice, which was a direct violation of the statutory requirement for seven clear days' notice.

Since the State’s counsel submitted on instructions that the impugned notice dated 29.04.2026 had already been recalled and that any future actions would follow the prescribed legal procedure, the Court found that the immediate grievance regarding that specific notice was rendered moot.

The Court emphasized that any fresh proceedings must strictly adhere to the Adhiniyam of 1993 and the Rules of 1994 to ensure a fair democratic process.

The Court held that if fresh proceedings are initiated, the authorities must ensure strict adherence to the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the Rules of 1994, providing due opportunity to all parties.

The petitioner was granted liberty to seek legal remedies if aggrieved by any subsequent actions.