IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13315 of 2008 NILAM KUMARI Versus (1) The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, (2) The Director, Panchayati Raj Bihar, (3) The District Magistrate, Nalanda, (4) The Sub-divisional Officer, Hilsa, District- Nalanda (5) The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Nalanda, (6) Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Nagarnausha Panchayat Samiti, (7) Rita Devi, (8) Ravindra Kumar, (9) Sunaina Devi, (10) Dulari Devi, (11)Md.Eqbal Hussain, (12)Jagdev Chaudhary, (13) Rita Devi, (14) Mahendra Paswan, (15) Kiran Devi, (16) Rajesh Lal, (17) Upendra Kumar and (18) Anuj Kumar. ------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.V. Giri Senior Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate For the State: Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra,G.P.X Mr. Suresh Mishra, J.C. to G.P.X For Private respondents: Mr Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar No.1, Advocate Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate --- 5. 20.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Govt. Pleader No.X for the State and learned counsel for the appearing respondents. The petitioner has come to this court for declaring and holding the notice as contained in letter No. 1053 dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Nagarnausa Panchayat Samiti for convening a meeting of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner Pramukh on 4.9.2008 as illegal and not in accordance with the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. By interim order dated 3.9.2008, this Court had directed that no special meeting shall be held pursuant to the impugned notice dated 1.9.2008. However, subsequently the meeting was held on 4.9.2008 and No Confidence Motion against 2 the petitioner was passed in the said meeting. The petitioner sought and was permitted to amend the prayer made in the writ petition so as to challenge the Resolution of No Confidence Motion on 4.9.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice dated 1.9.2008 fixing the special meeting for considering No Confidence Motion on 4.9.2008 is in the teeth of the mandatory provisions of Section 46 (4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, as it fails to provide 7 days clear notice. He further assails the same on the ground that no reasons/charges are mentioned in the said impugned notice as provided under Section 44 (3) (v) of the Act. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent meeting dated 4.9.2008 being in the face of the direction of this Court that no special meeting shall be held pursuant to the impugned notice dated 1.9.2008, the decision taken in the said meeting expressing No Confidence Motion against the petitioner being contrary to the orders of this Court is non est, void, illegal and fit to be set aside. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents as also the contesting respondents, it is not denied that the notice dated 1.9.2008 is evidently contrary to the mandatory requirement of Section 46 (4) of the Act since only two days clear notice was given instead of 7 days clear notice as required under the Act. 3 On behalf of the District Magistrate and the Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, however, it has been stated that the interim order dated 3.9.2008 of this Court could be communicated to Respondent No.6, Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti on 4.9.2008 at 5 P.M. due to procedural delay in the office of the District Magistrate, although the same had been communicated by Government Pleader No.10 on 3.9.2008 itself in the office of the District Magistrate. For the said reasons, it is stated that the meeting was held but the same has not been made operational after learning about the order of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said stand of the official respondents stating that the petitioner had personally informed the Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer regarding the same and false statement has been made in this regard that the Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti was not aware of the order. In the normal course of events, it is expected that a party in whose favour an interim order is passed by this Court would inform the concerned authorities, who have to stay their hands by virtue of the interim order. However, this Court in view of the statements made in the Counter affidavit of the District Magistrate grants the benefit of doubt to respondent No.6, Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer of the Panchayat 4 Samiti in the matter. However, the communication having been received in the office of the District Magistrate on the date of the order itself well within time, this Court fails to understand as to why immediately appropriate steps were not taken in the office of the District Magistrate and there is no explanation in the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate as to what arrangements he had made in his office to ensure that such urgent communication regarding the order of this Court is immediately notified to the concerned officials, who have to obey the same. The District Magistrate is warned to be more careful in the future and take appropriate action against his subordinate officials, who are not prompt in communicating the order of this Court. So far as the impugned notice dated 1.9.2008 is concerned, the same being clearly contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 46 (4) of the Act is invalid in the eye of law and thus any action that would have been taken pursuant to the said notice, even if there had been no interim order of this Court, would have been non est and contrary to law and liable to be set aside. For the said reasons the notice dated 1.9.2008 is quashed and the resolution passed in special meeting held on 4.9.2008, by which No Confidence has been expressed against the petitioner, is also quashed being contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, apart from the same being in breach of the order of this Court. 5 The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. It is made clear that since the notice as well as the decision taken in the special meeting held on 4.9.2008 have been set aside by this Court, it would be open to the respondents to take fresh steps in the matter in accordance with law. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)