IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15096 of 2008 RAJ KUMAR RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 30.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the resolution dated 25.9.2008(Annexure-2) by which he has been removed from the post of Pramukh, Raghopur Panchayat Samiti through a no-confidence motion. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the minutes of the proceedings of the special meeting held on 25.9.2008, that no discussion was held on the no-confidence motion and straightaway voting has been done which is in violation of the provisions of Section 44 (3) of the Act. It is urged that if such procedures are permitted then muscle men will take over the Panchayat Samiti and prevent discussions therein. It is also pointed out that the Pramukh is the most important person in the Block and if he is removed then it must be after discussion on the reasons/charges. It is also submitted that even members of the public and other higher authorities like the Election Commission have a right to examine the proceedings. From a perusal of the minutes of the proceedings of the special meeting held on 25.9.2008, it is evident that the charges against the petitioner and the Up-Pramukh were read out by the Presiding authority at the meeting and thereafter the same was - 2 - declared as open for discussion. Since neither the petitioner- Pramukh nor the Up-Pramukh were present to answer the charges alleged against them, all the members present at the meeting stated that there was no point of discussion since the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh are not present to defend the charges against them. In such a situation the matter was put to vote and motion was passed by 19 votes in its favour out of 20 members present and since the total directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti were 26, it was passed by a majority of such directly elected members as required by Section 44 (3) of the Act. This Court on a consideration of the materials on the record does not find that any illegality or irregularity has been committed in the meeting; there is no mandatory requirement that the members have to enter into a discussion. The only requirement is that the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh against whom no-confidence motion has been moved shall be given an opportunity during the discussion in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. If the petitioner himself does not avail of that opportunity, it is not open to him to raise such a plea in this Court. It is also not a case where any member present in the meeting had sought a discussion but the same was refused. For the above reasons, the writ application must fail and it is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)