IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16178 of 2008 Prabhakar Prasad Singh, son of Late Badri Narayan Singh, resident of Village- Malpa, P.O. Bhutauli Malpa, P.S. Chautham, District-Khagaria, the then Pramukh of Chautham Block Khagaria, District-Khagaria ………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Khagaria 4. The Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Chautham Block, Khagaria, 5. Sri Suresh Sada 6. Smt. Sulochana Devi 7. Anil Kumar Singh 8. Yogendra Chaudhari 9. Smt. Guriya Devi 10. Naresh Prasad Badal 11. Smt. Anu Lata Devi 12. Smt. Baby Devi 13. Rajeev Kumar Sinha 14. Ranjeet Das 15. Smt. Rubi Devi 16. Smt. Punita Devi 17. Smt. Anju Devi 18. Smt. Phul Wati Devi 19. Sri Kamal Kishor Yadav 20. Deepak Kumar, All respondent Nos. 5 to 20 are the members of Panchayat Samittee Chautham Block Khagaria, District-Khagaria ………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner:- M/S S.P.Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar, Rajeev Ranjan & Atul Kr. Srivastava. For the State :- None. ----------- 2 09.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the requisition of no confidence motion dated 26.8.2008 as also the subsequent resolution dated 15.9.2008 passed in the 2 special meeting held pursuant to the same by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Pramukh of Chautham Panchayat Samiti in Khagaria District. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reasons/charges as mentioned in the requisition and the subsequent notice are vague, general and non- specific on the basis of which no proper discussion was possible on the no confidence motion and accordingly the entire proceedings ending with the resolution of no confidence are fit to be quashed. In support of the aforesaid facts learned counsel refers to the reasons mentioned in the requisition. With respect to the first charge regarding nomination of one member on three Standing Committees, it is submitted by learned counsel that under Section 50(4) of the Act, it is permissible to appoint a single member in as many as three Standing Committees. It is further submitted that the charge regarding illegal appointment of teachers is also not correct since in the first place the petitioner is just one of the members of the Selection Committee and, secondly, no teacher has been appointed. Regarding the other charges learned counsel submits that the same are vague and non-specific. On a consideration of the various charges this Court is not in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. At least one of the allegations relates to unequal distribution of funds meant for the development schemes. It is 3 evident that the petitioner can easily meet the said allegation on the basis of the documents and materials available with the Panchayat Samiti through which it could be shown that there has been no unequal distribution of the funds of the development Schemes. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that all the charges/reasons mentioned in the requisition and the consequent notice are vague and non-specific on the basis of which it is not possible to hold a proper discussion in the course of the consideration of no confidence motion. Thus, there is no merit in the writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)