IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.824 of 2010 ***** 1. RAVI KANT KUMAR S/O RAM JEE PRASAD R/O VILL KARAN BIGHA, P.O.SHANKERDIH, P.S.PARWALPUR,DISTT-NALANDA. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NALANDA 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER NALANDA 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-EXECUTIVE OFFICER PARWALPUR, DISTT-NALANDA 4. SHANTI DEVI W/O SANJAY PRASAD R/O VILL DHANAWA,P.O. GAURAV NAGAR, P.S.PARWALPUR, DISTT-NALANDA 5. SUNITA DEVI W/O DHARMENDRA KUMAR AKELA R/O VILL LAKHWA,BIHGA, P.O.BISAI BIGHA, P.S.PARWALPUR, DISTT-NALANDA 6. HARI SAO S/O LATE BUNDI SAW R/O VILL MADHAVPUR, P.O.BANGPUR, P.S.PARWALPUR, DISTT-NALANDA 7. JITENDRA SINGH S/O LATE KAPILDEO SINGH R/O VILL GADAI CHAK, P.O. MAI, P.S. PARWALPUR, DISTT-NALANDA 8. SEEMA DEVI W/O SAMBHU BHUSAN SHARMA R/O VILL BANA BIGHA, P.O.+P.S.PARWALPUR, DISTT-NALANDA 9. BHARAT BHUSHAN MANJHI S/O SIRI MANJHI VILL KIRTIPUR, P.O.SINAWA, P.S.PARWALPUR, DISTT-NALANDA 10. RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O LATE RAM KISHUN BIND R/O VILL MILKIPAR, P.S.PARWALPUR, DISTT-NALANDA 11. RAMJEE PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE RAM BILASH SINGH R/O VILL SONCHARI, P.O.SONCHARI, P.S.PARWALPUR, DISTT-NALANDA. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, Standing Counsel-III For Respondents 7 & 10: Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Advocate For Respondents 8,9&11:Mr. Satyendra Prasad Singh, Advocate ----------- 3. 4.2.2010. By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for - 2 - issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of notice dated 6.1.2010, whereby the Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Parwalpur, Nalanda has fixed the special meeting on 15.1.2010 for the purpose of carrying out the motion of no confidence. 2. The singular ground that has been urged by Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice contained in Annexure-1 is in total transgression of the mandate of Section 44(3)(v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (for brevity „the Act‟) inasmuch as the notice did not contain the reasons, as postulated in the said provision, and that apart, the requisition which contained the ground for initiating vote of no confidence motion was not mooted through the petitioner, who is the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. 3. It is urged by him the purpose of incorporating the grounds in the notice is to apprise the person holding the office to face the vote of no confidence in a proper manner so that he may be in a position to convince the members that there was no warrant to pass motion of vote of no confidence. It is canvassed by him the same incorporates the basic facets - 3 - of natural justice and that apart an elected candidate has to be removed from office as per the provisions contemplated under the Act. To buttress the aforesaid submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in Nirmala Singh & Anr. V. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2006(1) PLJR 129 and Lalmati Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2009(4) PLJR 1033. 4. Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Tej Narain Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 & 10 supported the action taken by the authority. 5. To appreciate the rivalised submissions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused Annexure-1. On a bare look at the same it is evident it remotely contains any reason. The requisition was not mooted through the Pramukh. Section 44(3)(v) of the Act reads as under: “44(3)(v). Such reasons/charges, on the basis of which no confidence motion has 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.” 6. In the case of Nirmala Singh (supra) it has been held if reasons are not mentioned in the notice in support of - 4 - the motion it does not satisfy the requirement of law and, hence, it is vitiated. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12611 of 2008 (Meena Yadav & Anr. V. The State of Bihar & Ors), decided on 3.2.2010, has held the said provision to be mandatory. 7. In view of the aforesaid the notice contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. As we have quashed the notice, the meeting that has been held in pursuance of the said notice on 15.1.2010 is also quashed on the ground when the infrastructure collapses the superstructure is bound to collapse. However, liberty is granted to the members of the Panchayat Samiti to set in motion a fresh requisition, if they are inclined to do so. In that event the petitioner would not be entitled to seek the protective umbrella as contained in Section 44(3)(iii) of the Act. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be not order as to costs. Pawan/ (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)