IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12867 of 2010 SHIVSHANKAR SAH S/O RAMASHISH SAH R/O VILL.- HURKA, P.S.- TILOTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS 2. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, DEHRI-ON-SONE, ROHTAS 3. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TILOTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS 4. DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, ROHTAS 5. MEENA DEVI W/O LATE RAMASHARAY SINGH R/O VILL.- PARHARIYA, P.O.- ORGABAD, SARAIYA, P.S.- AMJHOR, DISTT.- ROHTAS 6. HALIMA BIBI W/O JAINUL KHAN R/O VILL.- KERPA, P.O.- RAMADIHRA, P.S.- AMJHOR, DISTT.- ROHTAS 7. RAM SURESH SINGH S/O MATHURA SINGH R/O VILL.- JARGODIH, P.O.- RAMADIHRA, P.S.- AMJHOR, DISTT.- ROHTAS 8. RAM LAKHAN PASWAN S/O GANESH PASWAN R/O LOHRADIH, P.O.- CHANDANPURA, P.S.- TILOTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS 9. DIWAKAR SINGH S/O DINESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL.- ALINAGAR, P.O.- MAHARAJGANJ, P.S.- TILOTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS 10. LEELAWATI DEVI W/O MAHANGOO RAM R/O VILLAGE AND POST- ORANGABAD SARAIYA, P.S.- AMJHOR, DISTT.- ROHTAS 11. SHEOPUJAN SINGH S/O SAHDEO SINGH R/O VILL.- MERRASARAI, P.S.- TILOTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS 12. KALAWATI DEVI W/O SAHDEO CHOUDHARY R/O VILL. AND POST- SEWAHI, P.S.- TILOTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS 13. ANITA DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN R/O VILL.- KAITHI, P.O.- MADOKHARA, P.S.- TILOTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS 14. BHUBNESHWAR TIWARI S/O NOT KNOWN R/O VILL.- JAMUHARA, P.O.- INDRAPURI, P.S.- TILOTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS 15. ASHMA KHATOON W/O NOT KNOWN R/O TILOTHU, P.S. & DISTT.- ROHTAS 16. ANJU DEVI W/O ASHOK RAI R/O VILL. & P.O.- RAMADIHRA, P.S.- AMJHOR, DISTT.- ROHTAS 17. ASHAPATI KUNWAR W/O LATE KAMESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL.- CHORIKUP, P.O.- CHANDANPURA, P.S.- TILOTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS. ----------- 3. 30-08-2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and its authorities and learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 16 and 17. 2 2. This writ petition is being heard at this stage at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging notice dated 17-07-2010 (Annexure-1) issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti –cum-Block Development Officer, Tilouthu in the District of Rohtas as well as resolution passed in the special meeting dated 24-07-2010 (Annexure-4) by the said Panchayat Samiti passing no confidence motion against the petitioner by 9 out of 14 votes. 4. It transpires that the petitioner is Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti, Tilouthu constituted in the year 2006. However, there was a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 24- 04-2010 for considering no confidence motion against the Pramukh of the Samiti as well as the Up-Pramukh (petitioner) of the Samiti. The said resolution was challenged by the Pramukh and Up- Pramukh(petitioner) of the Panchayat Samiti in CWJC NO. 6249 of 2010. This court after considering the matter in detail passed its order dated 11.05.2010 holding that there was no such valid resolution as per law and hence the court directed the Pramukh( who was petitioner no. 1 in that writ petition) to fix a date for special meeting to consider no confidence motion against him and the Up-Pramukh (who was petitioner no. 2 in that writ petition) within a period of fifteen days from that day on the charges and the allegations as made in the original requisition and face the House accordingly. The said order was challenged by the petitioners of that writ petition in LPA NO. 959 of 2010 but although notices were issued on 27-08-2010 but no 3 order of stay or any other interim order was passed by the Division Bench of this court. 5. However, the said order passed in the aforesaid writ case was not complied either by the Pramukh or by the Executive Officer-cum Block Development Officer and hence M.J.C. NO. 2498 of 2010 was filed by the same members of the Panchayat Samiti for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the Executive Officer- Cum-Block Development officer, Tilouthu. However, the said M.J.C. case was disposed of on 04-08-2010 issuing a strong warning against him as it was quite apparent that the said Executive officer-cum- Block Development Officer was hands-in-gloves with the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh (petitioner) and was somehow delaying the procedure of no confidence motion against them which was being raised by majority of the members of the Panchayat Samiti. 6. It transpires that the said Executive Officer-Cum- Block Development officer, Tilouthu in compliance of the order of this court specially in view of the proceedings of contempt issue notice on 17-07-2010 fixing 24-07-2010 as the date for holding special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti to consider no confidence motion against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the said notice, seven clear days were not given for holding the said special meeting and hence it was violative of the provision of Section 46(4) of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006. He further submits that in such situation there is plethora of decisions of this court holding that such notice was bad and illegal. He refers to five decisions of this 4 court in case of Lal Mohan Bej Versus State of Bihar reported in 1990(1) PLJR 750(Para-10); in case of Chinta Devi Versus State of Bihar reported in 2004(3) PLJR 654; in case of Arun Kumar Singh Versus State of Bihar reported in 2004(2) PLJR 367, in case of Jaylal Yadav Versus State of Bihar reported in 2004(2) PLJR 468 and in case of Smt. Rambha Singh Versus State of Bihar reported in 2004(2) PLJR62. 8. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as well as order dated 11.05.2010 passed in CWJC NO. 6249 of 2010 , it is quite apparent that the charges and allegations were clearly stated in the original requisition and on that basis the Pramukh and Executive Officer-Cum-Block Development officer, Tilouthu were directed to issue notices but they delayed the matter and only when the contempt petition (M.J.C. NO. 2498 of 2010) was filed the Executive Officer issued notice dated 17-07-2010 for holding a meeting on 24-07-2010. 9. It is quite apparent from the said fact that the warning given by this court to the Executive Officer-Cum-Block Development officer, Tilouthu in MJC NO. 2498 of 2010 was of no effect and having full knowledge of the provisions of law he had given notice on 17-07-2010 for meeting to be held on 24-07-2010. This clearly shows that the said Executive Officer-Cum-Block Development officer, Tilouthu is hands-in-gloves with Pramukh and Up-Pramukh (petitioner) of the said Panchayat Samiti. 10. Furthermore, the petitioner being Up-Pramukh and also being petitioner no. 2 in the earlier writ petition had full 5 knowledge of the order passed by a Bench of this court which had directed for issuance of notice vide order dated 11.05.2010 which was complied much belatedly after more than two months on 17-07-2010. Hence, the petitioner having full knowledge of the entire fact and development cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own connivance and illegality with the Executive Officer-Cum-Block Development officer, Tilouthu and the Pramukh. 11. In the said circumstances, the five decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not attracted to the special facts and circumstances of this case. So far as the provisions of Section 46(4) of the Act is concerned, the petitioner had full knowledge as would appear from order dated 11.05.2010 passed in CWJC No. 6249 of 2010 that the notice is going to be issued for holding special meeting of no confidence motion against him. In that view of the matter there was no illegality in the meeting dated 24-07- 2010 in which no confidence motion was again passed against the Up-Pramukh (petitioner) by 9 out of 14 votes. 12. Hence, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition nor the petitioner has come with clean hands rather it is quite apparent that the delay in issuance of notice was due to the connivance of the petitioner with the Executive Officer. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the District Magistrate, Rohtas is directed to take appropriate action against the Executive Officer-Cum-Block Development officer, Tilouthu in accordance with law. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)