Writ Court Declines Interference in No-Confidence Proceedings Involving Disputed Factual Questions of Statutory Notice Compliance

The petitioner, elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gullu on 13.05.2025, challenged the legality of a no-confidence motion initiated against her

Certain Panchas submitted a requisition on 25.05.2026, following which the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) scheduled a meeting for 04.06.2026 via a memo dated 27.05.2026

The petitioner alleged that the notice was merely affixed to her residence on 29.05.2026 rather than being personally served, thereby violating the mandatory seven-day notice period

She further contended the proceedings were politically motivated and that some requisitioning Panchas were legally disqualified due to land encroachment or age ineligibility

1. Whether the no-confidence motion proceedings were void for non-compliance with the mandatory seven-clear-days' notice requirement under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994

2. Whether a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution can adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding the service of notice and the eligibility of Panchas

Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which governs no-confidence motions against a Sarpanch

Rule 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Rules, 1994, which prescribes the mandatory procedure and timeframe for notice

The established principle of judicial restraint under Article 226, stating that writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised to interfere with statutory processes involving disputed factual determinations unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest violation of law

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s claims—specifically regarding the validity of the service by affixture, the calculation of the seven-day period, and the alleged disqualification of certain Panchas—are inherently "disputed questions of fact"

The court noted that determining whether the prescribed mode of service was exhausted before resorting to affixture requires an appreciation of evidence, which is beyond the scope of a summary proceeding under Article 226

It concluded that a writ court should not interfere with the statutory trajectory of a no-confidence motion at an interlocutory stage when the issues raised require factual determination by a competent authority or a lower forum

It held that the disputed facts regarding notice and eligibility must be raised before the appropriate forum

The court granted the petitioner liberty to avail of alternative legal remedies to challenge the outcome of the no-confidence proceedings, leaving all legal questions open for future adjudication

No order was made as to costs