IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9513 of 2010 KANTI DEVI W/O SRI RAM AYODHYA PRASAD R/O VILL.- BADLU TOLA, P.S. CHAPRA MUFFASIL, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA, THE MUKHIYA (SINCE REMOVED) OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BADLU TOLA, BLOCK- SADAR CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ELECTION) PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA. 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN AT CHAPRA DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. 7. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER SARAN AT CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. 8. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER CHAPRA SADAR, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHAPRA SADAR, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. 10. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION (PANCHAYAT) SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 11. THE SECRETARY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION (PANCHAYAT), SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 12. LALTI DEVI W/O CHANDESHWAR PRASAD R/O VILL.- JHUMAR TOLA, P.S. CHAPRA MUFFASIL, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA, PRESENTLY MEMBER OF BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, CHAPRA SADAR BLOCK, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, AC to G.A.7 For the State Election Commission : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh. ----------- 02 28.06.2010 This case is taken up on special mention pursuant to leave granted by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition challenges the order of the State Government dated 04.05.2010, as contained in Annexure-14, which has been passed with reference to Section 18(5) of the Bihar - 2 - Panchayat Raj Act, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Mukhiya. I have perused the order. From the order, it is clear that the allegation against the Mukhiya is that in the year 2006 in course of recruitment for Panchayat Teachers the signature of one Lalita Devi was forged as a member of the committee for selecting the candidates. Upon matter being referred to the State Government for action, State Government asked the Divisional Commissioner to enquire into the matter and file a report. The Collector of the district was also asked to enquire into the matter and send a report. Petitioner was also issued notice. Petitioner filed his show cause, stating that the allegation made was totally false, along with the show cause he filed affidavits of other three members which clearly asserted that the said Lalita Devi was present in the meeting and had signed in their presence. Regrettably, the State Government just notes that fact and then merely refers to the report of the Divisional Commissioner and indicts the petitioner. Unfortunately, such cannot be the order of the State Government under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. The order has serious consequences so far as petitioner is concerned. It is a quasi judicial order. It has to be an order giving reasons. The function cannot be delegated, even if an enquiry report is received, the same has to be disclosed to the party concerned and then it must be remembered that it is only a report but the mind has to be independently applied by the State Government and it is the State Government that has to give its finding. - 3 - In the present case, the petitioner had filed affidavits of other members as well, clearly stating that the said lady was present and signed. From the entire order, there does not appear any consideration of this aspect of the matter by the State Government. In this connection, I may refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and another since reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 798 wherein the Apex Court has explained the concept of application of mind and speaking order. In that case, the order of the monopolies of restrictive trade commission was under challenge. The Court found that the commission did apply to its mind to the trade agreement because the commission found some of the clauses in the trade agreement to be valid and some to be invalid, but from the order of the commission, it was not apparent as to why they were held to be invalid and what was the reasons behind it. The Apex Court clearly held that notwithstanding application of mind, if the order is unsupported by reasons and being a quasi judicial order, if such is the situation, then the order is void. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Government for fresh consideration in accordance with law. All consequential steps taken pursuant to the impugned order, thus, stands obliterated. The writ petition is allowed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)