IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4406 of 2010 KAMLESHWAR KUMAR S/O SHRI NARESH SAO R/O VILLAGE - BHAGWATIPUR , P.O - ANUAN , P.S- KARPI , DISTRICT - ARWAL. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR ARWAL 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER ARWAL 4. THE SUB - DIVISIONAL OFFICER ARWAL 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SONE BHADRA , SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL 6. MD. RIZWAN, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER , SONEBHADRA BANSHI , SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL 7. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION SONE BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR , VEERCHAND PATEL PATH , PATNA - 1 , REPRESENTED THROUGH THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA 8. MR. DAYANAND SINGH UP-PRAMUKH OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI, SONEBHADRA, SURYAPUR, DISTT- ARWAL 9. MR. ARJUN SINGH S/O NOT KNOW TO THIS PETITIONER MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR, DISTRICT- ARWAL 10. MR. SHYAMDEO SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR, DISTRICT- ARWAL 11. MR. YOGENDRA SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR, DISTRICT- ARWAL 12. SMT. JARAMANI DEVI W/O SHRI CHANDESHWAR PASWAN MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR, DISTRICT- ARWAL 13. SMT. KARILKU DEVI W/O SHRI UDAY YADAV MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR, DISTRICT- ARWAL 14. SMT. MEERA DEVI W/O SHRI UPENDRA SHARMA MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR, DISTRICT- ARWAL 15. SMT. ARTI DEVI W/O SHRI NAGENDRA DUBEY MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR, DISTRICT- ARWAL 16. SMT. GYANTI DEVI W/O SHRI UPENDRA PRASAD GUPTA MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL, - 2 - REPRESENTED THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR, DISTRICT- ARWAL 17. SMT. LAKHO DEVI W/O SHRI BIGUN RAM MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR , DISTRICT - ARWAL, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SONEBHADRA BANSI SURYAPUR, DISTRICT- ARWAL ----------- 02 07.04.2010 Heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner was the Pramukh of Sone Bhadra Bansi Suryapur Block Panchayat Samiti in the district of Arwal. He challenges the requisition to convene special meeting for his removal. He also challenges the proceedings of the special meeting in which vote of no confidence has been passed against him by 7:0 in a House constituted by 11 elected members. He consequently challenges the subsequent election which had already held to fill up the vacancy so caused. The grounds for challenge are that requisition for special meeting is required to be made, as envisaged under Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, is required to be signed by 1/3rd of the elected members. It was not so signed. Meaning thereby, in fact, it was signed minimum number of members along with their signatures several Mukhiyas had signed the requisition. He submits that the requisition is invalid. In my view, he is not correct. The requisite number of elected members having signed the requisition, the requisition is valid and merely because some third person has also signed will not invalidate the requisition. - 3 - The next point urged is that the special meeting was invalid, as it was convened with substantial number of Mukhiyas present therein, as would be apparent from the proceeding of meeting. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when it came to voting only the elected members seven of whom were present and voted in favour of no confidence. In my view, learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. In special meeting convene for the purpose of considering no confidence motion against the Pramukh any person other than the elected members and the Executive Officer would render the proceedings to be invalid, even though, they may not vote. No member other than the elected members is interested in the no confidence motion. It is they, who have to debate, it is they, who have to take decision and those decisions even to be taken in democratic and fearless manner with no foreign intervention. Here, admittedly, large number of Mukhiyas were present, who participated in the discussion and remain present when the voting took place. That ordinarily would vitiate the vote of no confidence. But, for reasons to be indicated hereinafter, I do not propose to interfere in the matter. The proceedings thus being held wrongly. The petitioner waited. He waited for the subsequent election and subsequent election being held and a person having been elected and assumed charge. Now, he seeks and challenges the very requisition of the special meeting that is too late. Having taken his - 4 - chances and having failed, he cannot now be permitted to turn around and challenge the whole process, which is, well settled. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)