IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17740 of 2010 AWADHESH PRASAD . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Brajesh Kumar, A.C. to S.C.17. For Respondent No.23: Najmul Hoda, Adv. Arun Prasad, Adv. ----------- 2/ 07/12/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and for respondent No.23, one of the members of the Panchayat, who has appeared suo motu. The petitioner is stated to be the Up Pramukh of the Asthawa Panchayat Samiti, Block- Asthawa, District- Nalanda. He is aggrieved by the notice dated 20.10.2010 issued by the Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer convening a special meeting on 28.10.2010 for discussion of the No Confidence Motion tabled against him by the requisite number of members. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section-44(3)(v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat Act) states the reasons/charges on basis of which No Confidence Motion has to be moved against the Up Pramukh shall be clearly mentioned in the notice summoning the meeting for consideration of the No Confidence Motion. The notice dated 20.10.2010 does not meet the statutory - 2 - requirements. It does not contain, mention or the reasons and/or charges on which the No Confidence Motion was proposed to be tabled. He submits that if the statutory provisions require a particular act to be done in a specified manner mentioned in the Statute Book, the act can be done only in that manner and other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. The notice dated 20.10.2010 itself being illegal, the No Confidence Motion passed on 28.10.2010 is clearly non est and the respondents cannot be permitted to go ahead with the fresh meeting on 11.12.2010 for election of a Pramukh afresh. Learned counsel for the State and respondent No.23 point out that the notice does satisfy the requirements of Section-46(4) of the Panchayat Act as it gives clear seven days notice for the holding of the meeting. Learned counsel for the respondents, however find it difficult to satisfy the Court from the notice dated 20.10.2010 that it contains details of the reasons/charges on basis of which No Confidence Motion was proposed to be tabled. Learned counsel for the State submits that if a No Confidence Motion has been tabled on the Floor of the House in the Panchayat, even if there be procedural infirmities, only the Courts can interfere with the same, - 3 - not the State Government. This Court has come across more than one order where the Block Development Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer in different Panchayats have issued notices for convening special meeting to discuss a No Confidence Motion without complying with the statutory provisions, both with regard to the time period stipulated in the Act for holding of the meeting as is required to be mentioned in the notice and also the requirement of the Law with regard to the contents of the notice as discussed above. Those constituting the Panchayat at the grassroots level may not necessarily have the same educational background and understanding as a Block Development Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer who is recruited after a competitive examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission. There is a presumption that the Executive Officer understands the Law and being able to read the statutory provisions is aware of the nature of his powers, the manner of exercise and limitations upon the same. If he is not, he may have very serious questions to answer with regard to his own employment and status. A No Confidence Motion is tabled by members of the Panchayat in an effort to make grassroots democracy work. The Executive Officer throttles the same - 4 - by issuing a notice in exercise of his Statutory powers in teeth of the provisions notwithstanding the fact that he has the benefit of a Government Pleader also in the district and the level of understanding where a presumption arises of his full awareness of his Statutory powers. This Court has already discussed that the Executive Officer is recruited through a competitive public examination in which inheres a certain level of intelligence. This Court today on the record as it stands could have directed stay of the notice dated 20.10.2010 and any further action taken or proposed to be taken in pursuance thereof while issuing notice to the other members of the Panchayat impleaded as private respondents, as only one of them has appeared. At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the correctness or falsity of the No Confidence Motion that was proposed to be moved. The Court is concerned with working of the grassroots democracy. The Panchayat wants the democracy to work, the Executive Officer by one stroke of pen throttles it. The Court shall then grant stay. Grassroots democracy shall not work till such time that all the parties have appeared before this Court and filed their affidavits. In the meantime, a person whom the Panchayat does not want to function shall continue to - 5 - function. Nothing stated herein shall mean any indictment of the petitioner with regard to the No Confidence Motion as it has already been observed hereinabove that this Court is not concerned with the correctness or incorrectness of the No Confidence Motion which has to be tested on its own merits in the Panchayat pursuant to a meeting summoned in accordance with law. Perhaps, it is time for the State Government to wake up and realize its duties to enable grassroots democracy to work keeping in mind the constitutional mandate. No useful purpose is going to be served by staying the operation of the orders, letting the writ petition be pending here for years as similar writ petitions will keep coming as they have kept coming. Let the petitioner file an application before the State Government under Section-154 of the Bihar Panchayat Act. It vests power in the State Government on its own motion or on an application made by any person interested to call for and examine the records of a Panchayat or a Standing Committee in respect of any proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein or as to the regularity of the said proceedings and take action appropriately in accordance with law after hearing the - 6 - concerned. This Court does not concur with the submission on behalf of the State that Section-154 of the Act does not empower the State Government to interfere with grassroots democracy and motions tabled on the Floor of the House notwithstanding the fact that they may be in teeth of the statutory provisions and may suffer from gross illegality and irregularity of proceedings. The Court expects the State Government to take appropriate action so that orders of the present nature do not continue to be passed notwithstanding repeated orders of this Court holding that such notices were illegal in more than one case. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to also seek interim relief under Section-154(2) of the Act before the State Government and which is required to be disposed off without any delay before 11.12.2010 so as not to frustrate his representation in view of the fresh elections proposed to be held on 11.12.2010 in light of the present discussion that the learned counsel for the State has not been able to satisfy the Court that the notice dated 20.10.2010 based on the recitals contained therein fulfils the requirement of Section-44(3)(v) of the Panchayat Act. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner may be advised to file his application before the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, - 7 - Government of Bihar. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observations and directions. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)