Chhattisgarh High Court

Mandatory sevennday notice period for No-confidence Motion must be strictly observed or cured by adjournment.

SMT. PUNITA MARAVI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: June 30, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Punita Maravi, is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bandha, District Bilaspur

Source reference: p.1

On June 25, 2026, a notice was issued to convene a meeting for a "No Confidence Motion" against her, scheduled for June 30, 2026

Source reference: para. 2

The petitioner approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking to quash the notice dated June 25, 2026 (Annexure P-1) and stay the proceedings.

Source reference: para. 2

The petitioner argued that the notice failed to provide the mandatory clear seven-day notice period required before holding such a motion

Source reference: para. 2
02

Issues

1. Whether the notice dated June 25, 2026, for a No Confidence Motion scheduled for June 30, 2026, was legally sustainable given the mandatory requirement of a 7-day notice period

Source reference: para. 2-3
03

Law Applied

The court applied the procedural requirements governing the conduct of No Confidence Motions under the relevant Panchayat Raj legislation (impliedly the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the rules framed thereunder).

Source reference: para. 2

The court specifically prioritized the legal principle that a clear 7-day notice period is mandatory to be provided to a Sarpanch before a meeting for a No Confidence Motion can be legally convened

Source reference: para. 2
04

Reasoning

The court examined the timeline between the issuance of the notice (June 25, 2026) and the scheduled date of the meeting (June 30, 2026). It found merit in the petitioner’s argument that this five-day window did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of a "clear 7 days’ notice"

Source reference: para. 2

Rather than quashing the proceedings entirely, the court exercised its discretionary power to rectify the procedural deficiency by extending the date of the meeting. This ensured that the democratic process of the No Confidence Motion remained intact while simultaneously upholding the statutory procedural rights of the Sarpanch

Source reference: para. 3
05

Holding

The Court held that the scheduled meeting on June 30, 2026, could not proceed due to the lack of sufficient notice.

Consequently, the Court directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to adjourn the meeting and instead convene the No Confidence Motion on July 3, 2026. The Court ordered that the time and schedule of the meeting remain the same as per the original notice, thereby providing the necessary clear notice period. The petition was disposed of with these directions

Source reference: para. 3-4
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

SMT. PUNITA MARAVIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · June 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment