IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12169 of 2009 Vijay Rai, son of Sri Jaleshwar Rai, resident of village Hewatpur (Manpur), P.O. Dighwara, P.S. Dariyapur, District Saran -at Chapra…………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, District Saran at Chapra. 5. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saran at Chapra, District Saran at Chapra 6. The Block Development Officer, Dariyapur, District Saran at Chapra. 7. The Pramukh, Block Panchayat Samiti, Dariyapur, District Saran at Chapra 8. Manorma Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 9. Anjana Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 10. Mina Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 11. Bindhyawasani Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 12. Babita Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 13. Lila Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 14. Poonam Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 15. Veena Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 16. Shakuntala Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 17. Shiv Kumari Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 18. Kumari Binita Rai wife of not known to the petitioner 19. Azamuddin son of not known to the petitioner 20. Dinesh Singh son of not known to the petitioner 21. Judagi Pandit son of not known to the petitioner 22. Rameshwar Nath Gupta son of not known to the petitioner 23. Amarendra Chaudhary son of not known to the petitioner 24. Ashok Singh son of not known to the petitioner 25. Ashok Kumar Singh son of not known to the petitioner 26. Ramchandra Pandit son of not known to the petitioner 27. Braj Kishore Sharma son of not known to the petitioner 28. Uma Shankar Manjhi son of not known to the petitioner 29. Raj Kumar Mahto son of not known to the petitioner 30. Devanti Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 31. Asha Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 32. Fula Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 33. Sunil Gupta wife of not known to the petitioner 34. Mundrika Manjhi son of not known to the petitioner 35. Sikandar Rai son of not known to the petitioner 36. Shesh Nath Ram son of not known to the petitioner 37. Meena Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 38. Sangeeta Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 39. Shanti Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 2 40. Lalita Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 41. Ranjit Sahani son of not known to the petitioner 42. Anita Devi wife of not known to the petitioner Respondent Nos.8 to 42 are the Members of the Block Panchayat Samiti, Dariyapur through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Dariyapur, P.S. Dariyapur, District Saran at Chapra…….Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.K. Ranjan, AC to SC 23 For respondent no.27 : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate. For private respondents :Mr. Surinder Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 05/ 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and its authorities, learned counsel for respondent no.27 and learned counsel for the remaining private respondents. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged entire proceedings of the special meeting of the Block Panchayat Samiti, Dariyapur held on 25.08.2009 in which No Confidence Motion was passed against the petitioner removing him from the post of Up-Pramukh of the said Panchayat Samiti and has also challenged the subsequent election of respondent no.27 as Up-Pramukh in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti dated 03.10.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the said orders on two points. The first point is with regard to section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) which provides that requisition for a special meeting for considering No Confidence Motion shall be presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti by not less than 3 one-third of total number of members elected directly from the territorial constituencies of the Panchayat Samiti and Pramukh shall convene such meeting on a date falling within fifteen days from such requisition and if Pramukh fails to call special meeting , Up-Pramukh or one-third of the total number of directly elected members may fix a date for such meeting and require the Executive Officer to give notice to the members. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case requisition was sent by 20 out of 37 members of the Panchayat Samiti on 23.01.2009 (Annexure-1) but notice was sent by the Executive Officer-Block Development Officer at the instance of Pramukh on 17.08.2009 i.e. after about seven months of the requisition. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after expiry of fifteen days from 23.01.2009, Pramukh (respondent no.7) had no jurisdiction to send notice for the said No Confidence Motion which act was absolutely without jurisdiction. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this court in case of Sindhu Devi and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2002(1) P.L.J.R. 281 in which it was held that a brute majority by members in absence of any indicated misconduct cannot decide the fate of a Pramukh/Up- Pramukh. 4. The second point raised by the petitioner is with regard to section 44 (3)(v) of the Act which provides that such reasons/charges on the basis of which no confidence motion has 4 to be moved against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, shall be clearly mentioned in the notice of meeting called to consider the no confidence motion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the requisition dated 23.01.2009 (Annexure-1) as well as from the notice of the meeting of No Confidence Motion dated 17.08.2009 (Annexure-4) it would be apparent that the reasons/charges were not mentioned therein. In this connection he relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this court in case of Meena Yadav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2010(2) P.L.J.R. 389 in which it was held that the relevant provision of law in categorical terms requires that the reasons/charges for No Confidence Motion shall be clearly mentioned in the notice of meeting. 5. Considering the aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents who opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is quite apparent that there are 37 members of the Block Panchayat Samit, Dariyapur out of whom 20 members signed a requisition dated 23.01.2009 (Annexure-1) in which the allegation of partiality, inaction and non performance of duties in accordance with law were specifically mentioned. It further transpires that the said requisition was addressed to the Pramukh, who not being satisfied by the signatures on the requisition, gave direction on 02.03.2009 requiring the affidavits of the members. Thereafter on 17.08.2009 (Anneuxre-4) notice was sent by the 5 Block Development Officer at the instance of Pramukh in which it was specifically mentioned that the charges against the petitioner were annexed to the said notice and the date for holding special meeting of No Confidence Motion was fixed on 25.08.2009. 6. It is also apparent that before commencement of the said special meeting, the petitioner submitted his resignation from the post of Up-Pramukh before the Pramukh on 24.08.2009, whereafter the special meeting of No Confidence Motion was held on 25.08.2009 which was passed against the petitioner by 23 out of 37 votes. After removal of the petitioner from the post of Up- Pramukh, a fresh election for the said post was held on 03.10.2009 in which respondent no.27 was elected as Up-Pramukh by 24 out of 37 members. 7. So far the first point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is quite apparent that the provision of section 44(3)(i) provided that meeting for No Confidence Motion shall be called by the Pramukh within fifteen days of the requisition, but there is nothing in the provision to show that Pramukh would be barred from calling the meeting after fifteen days. It is further provided that if the Pramukh fails to call special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or one-third of the total number of directly elected members may fix a date for such meeting, but in the instant case such fixation of date was never done by the Up- Pramukh or one-third members immediately after completion of fifteen days. There may be certain reasons due to which there may 6 be some delay like in the instant case. As per the claim of the respondents there was an ‘Achar Sanhita’ due to Parliamentary Election. In any view of the matter on the failure of Pramukh fresh meeting cannot be called by the Up-Pramukh as the meeting of No Confidence Motion was to be brought against him only. Furthermore, the requisitionists also could have called the meeting but they themselves waited for the notice to be sent by the Pramukh and they took part in the meeting as per the notice. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the said meeting was quite legal and justified and no objection was raised by anyone at the time of meeting. Furthermore, the petitioner who had himself resigned on 24.08.2009 from the post of Up-Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti cannot legally raise any objection in that regard and merely withdrawal of his resignation within seven days after the No Confidence Motion cannot legally entitle him to raise any such objection to the said meeting when the other members of the Panchayat Samiti never raised any such objection and removed him by majority of votes. 8. So far the second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, section 44(3)(v) provides that reasons/charges must be mentioned in the requisition. In the instant case from a bare perusal of requisition dated 23.01.2009(Annexure-1), it is quite apparent that the charges/grounds had been mentioned therein and the said requisition containing the charges had also been sent to the 7 members including the petitioner along with notice dated 17.08.2009 (Annexure-4). In the said circumstances, there appears to be no violation of any of the aforesaid provisions of law. 9. Considering the said matters in detail it is quite apparent that no illegality has been committed in the said proceeding, hence this court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )