IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12131 of 2009 Mini Singh, wife of Sri Arun Kumar Singh, resident of village-Rajwara Mukari (Saguni), P.O.-Ardewa, P.S.-Taraiyan, 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. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhaura, District-Saran at Chapra. 7. The Block Development Officer, Taraiyan, District-Saran at Chapra. 8. Sanjay Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, 9. Dharmendra Rai, son of not known to the petitioner, 10. Ashok Kumar Sharma, son of not known to the petitioner, 11. Kumari Pushpa, wife of not known to the petitioner, 12. Anand Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, 13. Kamlawati Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner, 14. Manju Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner, 15. Chhathu Rai, son of not known to the petitioner, 16. Rina Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner, 17. Jagdish Manjhi, son of not known to the petitioner, 18. Hari Shankar Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, 19. Mina Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner, 20. Punam Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner, 21. Nakibuddin Khan, son of not known to the petitioner, 22. Vishwakarma Prasad Sah, son of not known to the petitioner, 23. Kiran Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner, 24. Manju Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner, Respondent Nos.8 to 24 are the Members of the Block Panchayat Samiti Taraiyan through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Taraiyan, P.O.& P.S.-Taraiyan, District-Saran at Chapra. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Adv. Mr. Raghwanand, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar No.2, Adv. ---------- 04 01.04.2010 The petitioner was the Up-Pramukh of Taraiya Block Panchayat Samiti. Having removed by vote of no-confidence, she has filed this writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, as a consequence of vacancy being caused, fresh elections were - 2 - held and respondent no.23 has been elected as Up-Pramukh, which election has also been challenged on the ground that being consequential to principal relief sought for in the writ petition. Respondent no.23 and several other private-respondents have appeared. Head the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that upon a requisition being made to the Up- Pramukh (post of Pramukh being vacant), on 09.08.2009 the Up- Pramukh directed the Executive Officer to convene a meeting to consider no-confidence fixing the meeting on 18.08.2009, but the Executive Officer issued notices on 11.08.2009, convening the meeting on 18.08.2009. Thus, there was infraction of the mandatory provisions of seven clear days notice. Mr. Mangalam very clearly conceded that meeting was held and unanimously in her absence she was voted out. The question is, whether this was legal or illegal. In my view, one has to consider the nature of provision and the nature of right. Mr. Mangalam relies on a recent Division Bench judgment in the case of Meena Yadav and others Vs. The State of Bihar & ors. wherein it has been held that the provision of seven clear days notice is mandatory. In that judgment there are observations also as to how Executive Officer can play fraud by defeating the democratic process by delaying or deleting certain - 3 - things. At the same, I may refer to another Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Shamshad Khatun Vs.The State of Bihar since reported in 2010(1) PLJR 929 wherein this Court has refused to interfere in the matter, in which the date was fixed by the Pramukh herself, which date was short of 7 days yet again this Court’s order was affirmed by the Division Bench holding that a person who herself fixed the date could not take advantage of her own mistake. Thus seen, we have to look to the provisions and facts. Keeping in view the two judgments, the facts clearly show that the petitioner herself had fixed the date on 18.08.2009, on which date the meeting was held. The Executive Officer issued notice on 11.08.2009. The fact remains that not a single member supported the petitioner. Here an additional fact may also be noted that one day before the meeting petitioner had also tendered her resignation, which she withdrew on the very next day of the meeting, having already been removed in the meeting. It is upon these facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. It would in the words of Justice Aftab Alam (as he then was) in the case of Sanjay Singh Som Vs. The State of Bihar since reported in 2002(3) PLJR 589 be like putting the petitioner back in the seat by back door of a legal lacuna when she lost the confidence of the House. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) - 4 -