IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

<>

ON THE 22

<>

nd

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT PETITION No. 34643 of 2025

<>

SMT. PRIYANKA DHURVE

<>

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Sourabh Kumar Sharma - Advocate appearing through Video

Conferencing and Shri Vikash Kumar Santu - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Government Advocate for the

respondents/State.

Shri Deepak Tiwari - Advocate for respondents No.6 to 19.

ORDER

<>

The present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has

been filed assailing the order dated 07/08/2025 (Annexure-P/6) passed by

Collector, Balaghat, whereby petitioner's Appeal under Section 21(4) of the

Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in

short 'Adhiniyam, 1993

<>

'), has been rejected.

2.

<>

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an elected

Sarpanch of Gram Palehara, Panchayat Birasa, District Balaghat and has

assumed the charge of Sarpanch with effect from 14/07/2022. The strength

of Panchayat in total is 15 including Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. Earlier,

some of the Panchs tried to move a No Confidence Motion against the

1 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

petitioner with signatures of 13 Panchs, to which objections were raised.

They jointly filed application before the Prescribed Authority stating that

they are not in support of the No Confidence Motion. Thereafter, a general

body meeting was called, however, there was no resolution for No

Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer

(Revenue) and Prescribed Officer, Janpad Panchayat accepted the notice of

No Confidence Motion against the petitioner and appointed CEO Janpad

Panchayat Birsa to convene the meeting for consideration of No Confidence

Motion vide order dated 15/05/2025. After receiving a notice under the

provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch

Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President

Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1994'

<>

) and after satisfying himself

about the admissibility of the notice, SDO had fixed the date, time and place

for meeting of the Gram Panchayat to consider the No Confidence Motion

vide communication dated 23/05/2025.

3.

<>

It is argued that according to the rules made under the M.P. Gram

Sabha (Procedure of Meeting) Rules, 2001, the meeting is required to be held

at headquarters of the Gram Sabha concerned and according to the language

of the meeting dated 31/05/2025, it is revealed that proposal of No

Confidence Motion against Sarpanch was forwarded without acceptance of

the said resolution which is not tenable in eyes of law. It is further submitted

that when a meeting is called for discussion and for passing of No

Confidence Motion before passing such resolution, it is mandatory to

2 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

dispatch the notice to call for such a meeting upon all Panchs before 7 clear

days of the date fixed for meeting and if no such notice is dispatched, motion

passed in such meeting will be declared as null and void.

4.

<>

It is argued that in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of

1994 regarding calling of the meeting for discussion, no notice has been

dispatched giving clear 7 days time and fixing the date for meeting. As the

Prescribed Authority had not followed the due procedure, it is violation of

Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994 as well as violation of doctrine of procedural

legitimate expectation. Thus, the very notice itself fails. It is further

contended that the Prescribed Authority is required to satisfy himself about

its admissibility and on being satisfied, he shall fix a date, time and place for

meeting which shall not be more than 15 days from the date of receipt of said

notice. The notice which has been received by the Prescribed Officer was on

23/05/2025. It was accepted on 29/05/2025 and he has fixed the date on

31/05/2025 i.e. after 2 days for meeting of Gram Sabha. Therefore,

application of mind is not reflected. Even otherwise, the proceedings of

issuance of notice for purpose of No Confidence need to be issued by CEO,

whereas, in the present case the Sub-Divisional Officer had entrusted this job

which is not permissible and is contrary to the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Vee

<>

Emperor

<>

reported in AIR 1936 SC 253

<>

and Shrinarayan Tiwari Vs. State of

<>

M.P.

<>

reported in 1998 (1) JLJ 124

<>

. It is argued that as the procedure

prescribed is not followed by the Authorities, therefore the issuance of very

notice to the petitioner and other Panchs was bad in law.

3 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

5.

<>

Petitioner earlier had preferred a Writ Petition being W.P.

No.20334/2025 against the order dated 31/05/2025. The same was decided

by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an Appeal. Then again, she

preferred a Writ Petition being W.P. No.27972/2025, which was disposed of

directing respondent No.2 to take action after granting full opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner and all concerned. The Appeal was preferred by the

petitioner on 10/07/2025. On 14/07/2025, Collector fixed the case on

21/07/2025 and without summoning the material record, the matter was

heard and was fixed for delivery of judgment. The Collector had not given

any time to produce her defense nor granted any opportunity of hearing even

though the record of SDO and CEO was quite necessary for adjudication of

the case, but the same were not called for and were not before the Collector

when the order was passed. Therefore, this petition has been filed. He has

also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this

Court in the case of Bhulin Dewangan Vs. State of M.P. and others

<>

reported

in 2001 (2) MPLJ 372

<>

.

6.

<>

On notice being issued, reply has been filed by the respondents.

They have denied all the averments made in the Writ Petition. It is contended

that Panchs of Gram Palehar, Panchayat Birsada, District Balaghat moved a

No Confidence Motion/ resolution dated 13/05/2025 against the petitioner

with signatures of 13 Panchs and submitted the same before respondent No.3

for consideration in terms of Section 21 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 on

various grounds. Respondent No.3 has fixed the date, time and place for

meeting i.e. 31/05/2025 at 12:00 PM for consideration on No Confidence

4 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

Motion vide communication dated 23/05/2025. Respondent No.5 has been

appointed as the Presiding Officer for the said meeting. The petitioner's

averment is that the notice has not been served to the petitioner before 7 days

of the date fixed for meeting, to which it is contended that the respondents

have duly communicated the notice before 7 days of the date fixed for

meeting as would be apparent from the order dated 23/05/2025. Therefore,

the argument that she was not served with a notice prior to meeting is

baseless. The meeting was conducted on the date fixed for No Confidence

Motion i.e. on 31/05/2025, wherein the resolution was passed by majority of

two-third out of total 15 Panchs and the same has been forwarded to

respondent No.3 for consideration by letter dated 02/06/2025. Petitioner filed

an Appeal under Section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 before respondent

No.2 and after considering the material placed before the Appellate Authority

and granting full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Appeal was

dismissed and the proceedings of No Confidence Motion were affirmed and

were carried out in accordance with law. There is no procedural irregularity

committed by the Authorities while rejecting the Appeal preferred by the

petitioner vide order dated 07/08/2025. It is further contended that the

resolution of No Confidence Motion was passed on 13/05/2025 and the

meeting was duly convened on the notified date, time and place. The quorum

for conducting the meeting was fulfilled. The No Confidence Motion was

passed by the requisite majority of Panchs as prescribed under the

Adhiniyam, 1993. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon

the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhulin

<>

5 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

Dewangan (supra)

<>

and the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in the case of Pilvindar Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Others

<>

decided on

06/05/2025 in Writ Petition No.14715/2025

<>

in support of his arguments. It is

further argued that it is the intention of the legislature that has to be gathered

from the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and

Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994. The provision gives an intention that a meeting

of No Confidence Motion be called within a reasonable period not later than

15 days and every member has to be informed regarding the same in 7 days

in advance. The Full Bench has further considered the aspect that there is a

general rule that mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance and

the directory one only substantial. But even where the provision is

mandatory, every non-compliance of the same need not necessarily result in

nullification of the whole action. The party is required to show the prejudice

which has been caused by passing of the said order. However, the aspect of

dispatch of notice and receipt of the same was also considered by the Full

Bench of this Court. He has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

7.

<>

Respondents No.6 to 19 have filed their separate reply and virtually,

they have reiterated the contentions made by the respondents/State. In

addition, it is submitted that the petitioner was granted full opportunity of

hearing to defend her case. Therefore, there is no violation of the principles

of natural justice. It is not in dispute that No Confidence Motion is passed by

the majority of Panchs. There is no jurisdictional error which has been

committed by the Authorities in passing the impugned order. They have also

prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

8.

<>

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9.

<>

Petitioner has filed a Writ Appeal against the order dated

17/10/2015 passed in the present petition whereby prayer for grant of interim

relief was rejected. The Appellate Court in W.A. No.3167/2025 vide order

dated 22/12/2025 had disposed of the Appeal with a direction to get the

petition decided at the earliest on merits. Therefore, no interim relief was

granted to the petitioner at any point of time.

10.

<>

It is an admitted position that the petitioner being an elected

Sarpanch of Gram Palehara, Panchayat Birasad, District Balaghat, assumed

the charge of Sarpanch on 14/07/2022. Some of the Panchs tried to move a

No Confidence Motion against the petitioner with signatures of 13 Panchs,

wherein a joint application was filed by some of the Panchs saying that they

do not support the No Confidence Motion. Thereafter a general body

meeting was called and vide resolution dated 31/05/2025, decision was taken

to pass a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner, on which notices

were issued on 19/05/2025 for hearing on No Confidence Motion on

21/05/2025 at 04:00 PM prescribing the place for hearing of the matter. The

notice of such meeting was also issued to the petitioner on 23/05/2025,

which is said to be received by the petitioner on 29/05/2025.

11.

<>

This goes to show that the petitioner was well aware of issuance of

notice of proceedings under Section 21(1)(2)(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993

regarding No Confidence Motion. Petitioner appeared in the meeting of No

Confidence Motion on 31/05/2025 and thereafter challenged the order passed

on 31/05/2025 before the Collector, District Balaghat by filing an Appeal.

7 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

The Appellate Authority has observed that out of 13 Panchs along with

Sarpanch who were present, 12 had casted votes in favour of No Confidence

Motion and passed the order dated 07/08/2025 dismissing the appeal. All the

grounds raised by the petitioner were taken into consideration.

12.

<>

It is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings for issuance of

notice in terms of Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994 as well as procedure as

required under Section 21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 is not followed by the

Authorities.

13.

<>

Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994 is required to be seen, which reads

as under:-

"3. Notice.-

<>

(1) xxx

(2) xxx

(3) On receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) the

prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the

admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21

(3), 28 (3) and 35 (3), as the case may be. On being thus

satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for the

meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janapad Panchayat or

Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be

more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the

said notice. The notice of such meeting specifying the

date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be

despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram

Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janapad or

Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of

the Panchayat concerned seven days before the

meeting."

14.

<>

Section 21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 reads as under:-

"21. No-Confidence Motion against Sarpanch and Up-

<>

Sarpanch.

<>

- (1) On a motion of no-confidence being

passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed

by majority of not less than three fourth of the Panchas

present and voting and such majority is more than two

third of the total number of Panchas constituting the

Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-

Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall

cease to hold office forthwith.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or

the Rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up-

8 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a

motion of no-confidence is discussed against him. Such

meeting shall be convened in such manner as may be

prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of

the Government as the Prescribed Authority may

appoint. The Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case

may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to

take part in, the proceeding of the meeting. (3) No-

confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or

Up-Sarpanch within a period of--

(i) one year from the date of which the Sarpanch or Up-

Sarpanch enter their respective office;

(ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of

office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may

be, expires;

(iii) one year from the date on which previous motion of

no-confidence was rejected.

(4) If the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may

be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion

carried out under sub-section (1), he shall, within seven

days from the date on which such motion was carried,

refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as

far as possible, within thirty days from the date on

which it was received by him, as his decision shall be

final."

15.

<>

The conditions mentioned in Section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam,

1993 are required to be followed by the Authorities. It is not a case wherein

any of these conditions have been violated by the Authorities.

16.

<>

From the perusal of aforesaid, it is seen that the Prescribed

Authority after satisfying itself about the admissibility of the notice with

reference to Section 21(3), 28(3) and 35(3), as a case may be, shall fix the

date, time and place for meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat

or Zila Panchayat as the case may be. The notice specifying the date, time

and place shall be dispatched through Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or

Chief Executive Officer of Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to

every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting.

17.

<>

The said aspect of dispatching of notice and receipt of the same

9 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhulin

<>

Dewangan (supra)

<>

and the Full Bench has held as under:-

"15.

<>

The general rule is that non-compliance of

mandatory requirement results in nullification of the

Act. There are, however, several exceptions to the

same. If certain requirements or conditions are provided

by statute in the interest of a particular person, the

requirements or conditions, although mandatory, may

be waived by him if no public interest are involved and

in such a case the act done will be valid even if the

requirements or conditions have not been performed.

This appears to be the reason for learned C.K. Prasad,

J., in Dhumadhandin v. State of M.P. (1997 (1) Vidhi

Bhasvar 49) which was followed by R.S. Garg, J., in

Mahavir Saket v. Collector, Rewa (1998 (1) JLJ 113)

for holding that mere non-compliance of first part of the

rule in fixing a meeting beyond the prescribed days of

the motion of no-confidence would not invalidate the

whole proceedings. In case of Dhumadhandin (supra),

the Sarpanch did not question the validity of the notice

calling the meeting of no-confidence and in fact had

taken chance by facing the motion. R.S. Garg, J., in

Mahavir Saket (supra) placed reliance on the decision

of C.K. Prasad, J., in Dhumadhandin (supra) to up-hold

the passing of the no-confidence motion in the

adjourned meeting as in the meeting called within the

prescribed fifteen days the Presiding Officer was not

available. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 permits

reference of a dispute to the Collector by Sarpanch or

Up-Sarpanch against whom a notice of no confidence

motion had been passed. The proceedings of the no-

confidence motion or other proceedings under the Act

are also assailable in this Court as Constitutional Court

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As has

been construed by us, even though second part of the

rule requiring dispatch of notice of the meeting to the

member is mandatory, yet in every case of challenge to

the proceeding of no-confidence motion either before

the Collector or this Court, it would still be open to the

Collector or this Court to find out whether in a given

case non-compliance of any part of the rule has in fact

10 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

resulted in any failure of justice or has caused any

serious prejudice to any of the parties. The general rule

is that a mandatory provision of law requires strict

compliance and the directory one only substantial. But

even where the provision is mandatory, every non-

compliance of the same need not necessarily result in

nullification of the whole action. In a given situation

even for non-fulfillment of mandatory requirement, the

authority empowered to take a decision may refuse to

nullify the action on the ground that no substantial

prejudice had been caused to the party affected or to

any other party which would have any other substantial

interest in the proceeding. This Court under Article

227 of the Constitution has also a discretion not to

interfere even though a mandatory requirement of law

has not been strictly complied with as thereby no

serious prejudice or failure of justice has been caused.

This is how various Single Bench decisions in which

even after finding some infraction of the second part of

Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994, the resolution of no-

confidence motion passed was not invalidated on the

ground that no substantial prejudice thereby was caused

to the affected parties. The intention of the legislature

has to be gathered from the provisions contained in

Section 21 and the Rule 3 (3) framed thereunder. The

provisions do evince an intention that a meeting of the

no-confidence motion be called within a reasonable

period of not later than 15 days and every member has

to be informed of the same seven days in advance. A

notice of no-confidence motion is required to be moved

by not less than 1/3rd of the total number of elected

members as required by first Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of

Rule 3 and can be lawfully carried by a resolution

passed by majority of not less than 3/4th of the Panchas

present and voting and such majority has to be more

than 2/3rd of the total number of Panchas constituting

the Panchayat in accordance with subsection (1) of

Section 21 of the Act. This being the substance of the

provisions under the Act and the rules, a mere non-

compliance of second part of Sub-rule (3) would not in

every case invalidate the action unless the Collector

while deciding the dispute under Sub-section (4) of

11 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

Section 21 or this Court in exercise of its supervisory

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution comes

to the conclusion that such non-compliance has caused

serious prejudice to the affected office bearer or has

otherwise resulted in failure of justice."

18.

<>

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhulin Dewangan

<>

(supra)

<>

has approved the decision taken by the Division Bench of this Court

in the case of Muku Bai Vs. State of M.P.

<>

reported in 1998 (2) MPLJ 661

<>

as

well as Mahesh Pd. Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.

<>

reported in 1997 (2) JLJ

<>

397, Srinarayan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.

<>

reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 427,

<>

Sharda Bai Khatik Vs. State of M.P.

<>

reported in 1997 (2) MPLJ 291

<>

and has

rightly upheld the judgment passed in the case of Dhumadhandin Vs. State of

<>

M.P. and others

<>

reported in 1997 (2) MPLJ 175

<>

observing therein that

learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his discretion and declined to

invalidate the No Confidence Motion passed in a meeting held beyond 15

days of the receipt of the No Confidence Motion and the case is

distinguishable on its facts.

19.

<>

Similar view was taken in the case of Pilvindar Singh

<>

(supra),

<>

wherein taking note of the judgment passed in the case of Bhulin

<>

Dewangan (supra),

<>

the Court has held as under:-

"13. The first contention of the petitioner is that the

prescribed authority on receiving the notice under Sub-

Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 had not satisfied

itself about the admissibility of the notice with

reference to Section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and

since the said satisfaction has not been recorded and had

fixed the date, the entire proceedings are vitiated and

thus deserve to be quashed.

14. Section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 provides that

“no-confidence motion shall not lie against the

Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of; (i) two

and half year from the date on which the Sarpanch or

Up-Sarpanch enter their respective Office; (ii) six

12 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

months preceding the date on which the term of office

of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be,

expires; (iii) six months from the date on which the

previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.

15. Herein case, the petitioner had assumed the Office

of Sarpanch on 14.07.2022. As per the contention of the

respondents in their petition under Section 21 of the

Adhiniyam, 1993, resolution of no-confidence motion

was passed on 10.03.2025 which was clearly after a

period of two & half years from the date on which the

petitioner has assumed the Office. Thus, the contention

of the petitioner that satisfaction of no confidence has

not been recorded by the prescribed authority with

regard to Section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993,

therefore, the order is bad in law has no force, as

admittedly from the record, the no-confidence was

brought by the majority of the members after a period of

two and half years from the date of assuming of the

charge by the petitioner and thus, fixing of the date,

time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat

cannot be faulted with and also since the date fixed by

the prescribed authority was 29.04.2025, which was not

more than 15 days from the date of receipt of the said

notice by the prescribed authority, therefore, on this

count also, fixing of the meeting cannot be faulted

with."

20.

<>

From the perusal of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Full

Bench as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is apparently clear that

the dispatching of notice and its receipt by the concerning person, though

being a mandatory provision under the Act, however the fact remains that the

non-compliance of the same need not be necessarily result in nullification of

the whole action. It depends upon facts of each case. The argument that

mandatory provisions are not followed is of no benefit to the petitioner on

the ground that no substantial prejudice has been caused to her or any other

party.

21.

<>

If the aforesaid principle is applied to the facts of the present case,

it is seen that the notice which was issued for fixing a date, time and place for

consideration of No Confidence motion were duly served to the petitioner.

13 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

There is a noting of the petitioner on the said notice that the said notice was

received by the petitioner on 29/05/2025, that is two days prior to the date of

hearing on No Confidence motion. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared and

the motion on No Confidence against the petitioner was passed by the

majority of two-third out of total 15 Panchs and the same was forwarded for

consideration before respondent No.3 vide letter dated 02/06/2025. The

Appeal filed by the petitioner against the No Confidence motion dated

31/05/2025 was dismissed observing that out of 13 Panchs in all present

including the petitioner, 12 has voted in favour of the No Confidence

motion.

22.

<>

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhulin Dewangan

<>

(supra),

<>

has further considered the aspect that it is the intention of the

legislature which has to be seen when a No Confidence Motion against the

Sarpanch is moved which is duly supported by two-third majority of votes of

Panchs voting in favour of the No Confidence motion.

23.

<>

In the present case, out of 13 Panchs, 12 Panchs have voted in

favour of No Confidence motion. The ground regarding dispatch and receipt

of notice and not granting reasonable period of 15 days to every member will

not be of any help to the petitioner. It is provided under Section 21 of the

Adhiniyam, 1993 that a meeting of No Confidence be called within a

reasonable period not later than 15 days i.e. the outer time limit of 15 days is

fixed by the legislature, but prior to 15 days the meeting can be called at any

point of time. In the present case, after issuance of notice the meeting was

fixed on 31/05/2025. The entire record indicates that the petitioner was well

14 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257

(VISHAL MISHRA)

<>

JUDGE

<>

aware of the fact of proceedings of No Confidence being initiated against

her. She participated in the proceedings and thereafter the order was passed

by the Collector.

24.

<>

Under these circumstances, no prejudice has been caused to the

petitioner. The judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner is of

no help to the petitioner. Therefore, finding no illegality in the order

impugned passed by the Authorities, no relief can be extended to the

petitioner.

25.

<>

The petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed

<>

. No order as

to costs.

Shbhnkr

15 WP-34643-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16257