IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15476 of 2010 Krishna Devi,w/o Sri Sanjeet Kumar Sahni, r/o-village-Singhia Ghat, P.S.-Bibhutipur, District-Samastipur, presently Pramukh, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti,District-Samastipur. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Samstipur. 3. The Block Development Officer, Bibhutipur, District- Samstipur. 4. Mukesh Kumar Nirala, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.19, District-Samastipur. 5. Bishnudeo Pd. Singh, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.14, District-Samastipur. 6. Anil Choudhary, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.8, District-Samastipur. 7. Ramadhar Choudhary, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti, Bharpura, Area No.2, District-Samastipur. 8. Suresh Prasad, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area Bibhutipur Purbara, District-Samastipur. 9. Ramwaran Paswan, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.17, District-Samastipur. 10. Ram Kailash Paswan, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.27, District-Samastipur. 11. Ashok Kumar, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.9, District-Samastipur. 12. Hira Lal Thakur, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.6, District-Samastipur. 13. Manju Devi, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.35, District- Samastipur. 14. Sheela Devi, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Mahti Uttar Area, District-Samastipur. 15. Anita Devi, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.31, District-Samastipur. 16. Nand Rani Kumari, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.30, District-Samastipur. 17. Sone Lal Mahto, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.33, District-Samastipur. 18. Anita Devi, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.42, District-Samastipur. 19. Rekha Devi, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.41, District-Samastipur. 20. Ram Bilas Sharma, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.12, District-Samastipur. 21. Lalmani Devi, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.13, District-Samastipur. 22. Rina Devi, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area Surauli No.16, District-Samastipur. 23. Mira Kumari, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Patailia Area No.22, District-Samastipur. 2 24. Deshri Parikh, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.20, District-Samastipur. 25. Jagdish Ram, Member, Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti Area No.1, District-Samastipur. .. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Sharda Nand Mishra, Jagnnath Singh and P.K.Singh, Advocates. For the State : Miss G.Nisha, A.C. to AAG-7. ------------ 02/ 28-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges requisition dated 06-09-2010 (Annexure-5) submitted by 22 out of 42 directly elected members of Bibhutipur Block Panchayat Samiti and also challenges notice dated 22-09-2010 (Annexure-6/A) issued by the Executive Officer-cum-Block Developement Officer, Bibhutipur, District-Samastipur (respondent no.3) to the members of the said Panchayat Samiti fixing date of special meeting for considering no confidence motion against the Pramukh (petitioner) on 30-09-2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the said requisition and notice on the following two grounds: (i) Earlier requisition dated 12-07-2010 (Annexure-1) sent by 21 out of 42 members of the Panchyat Samiti against the Pramukh (petitioner) was withdrawn by them on 04- 08-2010 (Annexure-4) and hence the said resolution having been rejected, no fresh no confidence motion against the Pramukh (petitioner) can be brought before the Panchayat Samiti within a period of one 3 year from the date of such rejection of motion as per Section 44(3)(iii) of the Bihar Panchyat Raj Act, 2006 and accordingly fresh requisition for no confidence motion sent by the members on 06-09-2010 (Annexure-5) was not legally brought. (ii) The consequential notice dated 22-09-2010 (Annexure-6/A) sent by the Executive Officer (respondent no.3) was not addressed to the Pramukh (petitioner) and hence it was violative of the provisions of Section 44(3)(i) of the said Act. 4. From the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the election was held in the year 2006 for the members of Bibhutipur Panchayat Samiti, Samastipur and the petitioner was elected as Pramukh of the said Panchayat Samiti. 5. It further transpires that much later a requisition dated 12-07-2010 (Annexure-1) was sent by 21 out of 42 members of the Panchayat Samiti against the Pramukh (petitioner) and it was addressed to the Pramukh of the Gram Panchayat also. However, the said requisition was withdrawn on 04-08-2010 (Annexure-4) by the requisitionists on some conditions. 6. A month thereafter requisition dated 6-09-2010 (Annexure-5) was sent by 22 out of 42 members of the Panchayat Samiti against the Pramukh (petitioner) and it was also addressed to 4 the said Pramukh. The said requisition was rejected by the Pramukh herself on 20-09-2010 (Annexure-6) rebutting the allegations raised by the requisitionists and also stating that no fresh requisition can be legally brought within one year from the date of withdrawal of earlier requisition on 04-08-2010. 7. However, at the behest of the requisitionists notice dated 22-09-2010 (Annexure-6/A) was issued by the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat for holding special meeting on 30-09-2010 for considering no confidence motion against the Pramukh (petitioner) as per the requisition dated 06.09.2010. It is apparent from the said notice that the allegations/charges levelled in the requisition against the Pramukh had been clearly enumerated and seven clear days notice was given in the notice. 8. So far as the first point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, Section 44(3)(iii) of the said Act clearly provides that if the motion of no confidence brought against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both is once rejected, no fresh motion of no confidence against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both, as the case may be, shall be brought before the Panchayat Samiti within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion. 9. From a bare perusal of the said provision along with other provisions mentioned in the Act it is quite apparent that the word ‘rejected’ used therein means ‘rejected (defeated) in the special meeting by the members of the Panchayat Samiti’. It does not mean or include rejection on technical ground by any authority concerned or withdrawal by the requisitionists themselves before holding the special 5 meeting, as in those cases such rejection on technical ground or withdrawal does not contain the seal of the members of the Panchayat Samiti in the special meeting. 10. In the instant case there was a mere withdrawal of requisition on 04-08-2010, and there was no rejection by the Panchayat Samiti as such which could entail any bar for the requisitionists to send a fresh requisition for holding no confidence motion against the Pramukh. In the circumstances, the subsequent requisition brought by the majority of the members of the Panchayat Samiti dated 06-09-2010 (Annexure-5) was legal and proper. 11. So far as the second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is quite apparent that the Pramukh (petitioner) had refused to convene a special meeting and hence the Executive Officer was quite justified to issue notice at the behest of the requisitionists. Further more, Section 44(3)(i) clearly requires the Executive officer to give notice to the members and to take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. In the instant case notices were legally to be issued and have been issued to all the members of the Panchayat Samiti including the Pramukh and there was no occasion for the Executive officer to give a special notice to the Pramukh (petitioner) for holding special meeting for considering no confidence against him. Hence, it is also not violative of any provision of law. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality, either in the requisition sent by the majority of the members of the Panchayat Samiti, or in the notice 6 sent by the Executive Officer to convene the aforesaid special meeting for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this petition, which is thus dismissed. A.H./ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )