No-confidence proceedings are invalid where mandatory notice and verification requirements are not strictly followed.

The petitioner, an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ulba, challenged the order-sheet dated 20 August 2026 and the consequential proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Abhanpur, entertaining an alleged no-confidence motion submitted by ten Panchas against him and fixing the meeting for 4 September 2026.

The petitioner contended that the mandatory statutory procedure had not been followed, including the requirement of clear seven-days’ notice, proper service of notice, and verification of the application.

He further pointed out that the scheduled date was a declared public holiday on account of Janmashtami and that notice was served upon him only on 1 September 2026, after the Court directed the State counsel to obtain instructions.

The State maintained that the prescribed procedure had been duly complied with.

The Court examined the relevant documents and the procedure followed by the authorities.

The Court applied the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the 1994 Rules governing no-confidence motions against elected Panchayat office-bearers, holding that the prescribed procedural safeguards—including proper verification and legally compliant notice—must be strictly followed and cannot be treated as empty formalities.

The Court relied on Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P. & Others, 2000 (4) MPHT 69, for the principle that substantial prejudice caused by non-compliance with mandatory procedure vitiates no-confidence proceedings.

It also referred to Smt. Neelima Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPC No. 4281 of 2026, decided on 20 August 2026, explaining that the one-year bar under Section 21(3)(iii) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 applies only where an earlier no-confidence motion has been “rejected” on merits; proceedings that fail due to technical or procedural defects do not attract that bar.

The Court found, prima facie, that the statutory procedure had not been followed.

The notice of the meeting was allegedly not served upon the petitioner until 1 September 2026, leaving insufficient time to satisfy the mandatory notice requirement and causing procedural prejudice.

The Court also noted that the meeting had been fixed for 4 September 2026, a declared public holiday on account of Janmashtami, further undermining the validity of the proposed proceedings.

In addition, the verification of the application for the no-confidence motion was not shown to have been conducted in accordance with law, despite the relevant documents having been forwarded to the authorities only on 31 August 2026.

Applying the statutory requirements and the principle that mandatory procedural safeguards must be strictly observed, the Court held that the scheduled meeting could not lawfully proceed.

However, because the motion had not been considered or rejected on merits, quashing the defective proceedings did not prevent initiation of fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

The order did not amount to rejection of the no-confidence motion on merits.

The competent authorities, including the Up-Sarpanch and Panchas, were therefore permitted to initiate fresh no-confidence proceedings, provided they strictly complied with the 1994 Rules and the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

The writ petition was accordingly finally disposed of.