IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1478 of 2009 Lalmati Devi, wife of Sri Bachchu Prasad, Resident of village Kochhasa, Police Station Karpi, District Arwal, present Upadhyakasha, Zila Parishad Arwal, District Arwal .... (Respondent) / Appellant VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Arwal 4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Arwal 5. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Dy. Development Commissioner, Zila Parishad, Arwal 6. The State Election Commission represented through the Secretary, The State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna- 800 001. 7. Subhash Chandra Yadav, Son of Sri Parmeshwar Yadav, Chairman, Zila Parishad, Arwal 8. Smt. Parmila Sinha, Wife of Sri Vishwanath Prasad Singh 9. Smt. Renu Devi, Wife of Sri Rabindra Kumar Ravi 10. Smt. Geeta Mandal, Wife of Sri Anil Kumar 11.Smt. Sarswati Devi @ Rishikala, Wife of Sri Bhuneshwar Prasad 12. Sri Rizwan Akhtar, Son of Late Humayun Akhtar 13. Sri Johan Ram, Son of Late Jaglal Das Respondent No.7 to 13 are members of Zila Parishad, Arwal within the district of Arwal represented through its Chief Executive Officer –cum- DDC, Zila Parishad, Arwal ..... Respondents/ Respondents 14. Sri Madheshwar Prasad, Son of Sri Deonandan Prasad, resident of village Kasauti, P.O. Bambhai, P.S. Karpi, District Arwal .... Petitioner/ Respondent WITH 2 LPA No.1479 of 2009 Subhash Chandra Yadav, Son of Sri Parmeshwar Yadav, Resident of village Chiraiyatand, Police Station Arwal, District Arwal, presently Adhyaksh of Zila Parishad, Arwal, District Arwal ...... (Respondent)/ Appellant VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Arwal 4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Arwal 5. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Dy. Development Commissioner, Zila Parishad, Arwal 6. The State Election Commission represented through the Secretary, The State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna- 800 001. 7. Lalmati Devi, Wife of Sri Bachhu Prasad, Vice Chairman, Zila Parishad, Arwal 8. Smt. Parmila Sinha, Wife of Sri Vishwanath Prasad Singh 9. Smt. Renu Devi, Wife of Sri Rabindra Kumar Ravi 10. Smt. Geeta Mandal, Wife of Sri Anil Kumar 11.Smt. Sarswati Devi @ Rishikala, Wife of Sri Bhuneshwar Prasad 12. Sri Rizwan Akhtar, Son of Late Humayun Akhtar 13. Sri Johan Ram, Son of Late Jaglal Das Respondent No.7 to 13 are members of Zila Parishad, Arwal within the district of Arwal represented through its Chief Executive Officer –cum- DDC, Zila Parishad, Arwal 14. Sri Madheshwar Prasad, Son of Sri Deonandan Prasad, resident of village Kasauti, P.O. Bambhai, P.S. Karpi, District Arwal .... Petitioner/ Respondent -------- 3 2 25.11.2009 For the Appellants : M/s Bindhyachal Singh & Umesh Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr Mithilesh Mowar, AC to GP XI For Respondent 5 : Mr Nikesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent 6 : Mr Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate For Respondent 14 : M/s Shri Prakash Srivastava & Shyam Kishore Das, Advocates ------- Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned counsels for some of the respondents in both the appeals. After examining the provisions of Section 70 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the learned Writ Court had deprecated the action or inaction of the District Magistrate, Arwal in doing nothing after cancelling the earlier notice for convening special meeting to consider a request for no confidence against Aadhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, Zila Parishad, Arwal. We are in agreement with the views of the learned Writ Court that the District Magistrate had statutory duty to convene the meeting in the scheme of things provided under Section 70 of the Act. The Writ Court has directed the Collector to remove the defects in the earlier notice and issue fresh notice for convening the 4 special meeting which is scheduled for being held today. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the Collector had the power not to call the special meeting in view of provisions in Section 157 of the Act. On going through the provisions of Section 157, we find that it vests him with the incidental and ancillary power for convening a special meeting for considering the no confidence motion. The use of the words “.... is of the opinion that any irregularity or mistake is being committed..” in our view, qualifies the further provision “.....so far as provisions related to conduct of any special meeting of a Panchayat to consider a no confidence motion is concerned ....”. This provision does not give power to the District Magistrate to sit as an appellate authority and frustrate the views of the majority of the elected members to convene a special meeting for considering a motion of no confidence. It was next submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Aadhayaksha and Upadhayaksha should have been given a notice by the Writ Court before issuing directions to the District Magistrate by the order under appeal. On 5 going through the directions, we find that it does not decide anything against Aadhayaksha and Upadhayaksha except asking the District Magistrate, Arwal to proceed in accordance with law. In our view, such technicality cannot be allowed to stand in the way of fair play of democratic principle provided in the Act so that views of the majority of the elected members is ascertained by holding a special meeting in accordance with law. Lastly, it was submitted that reasons for no confidence motion are vague. If such type of plea is left in the discretion of the Collector, then no Aadhayaksha or Upadhayaksha will ever be satisfied that the reasons are good. Such matters must be left to be debated by the members themselves. Only important thing is that specific reasons be known to the office bearers before the meeting is convened so that they may be ready for debate. We find no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. The appellants have received notice of proposed meeting on 25th November, 2009. It is not proper to permit them to assail that notice in the present appeals. 6 The validity of such notice, if occasion arises, may be questioned by affected parties through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. (Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma,J.) sk