IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 3899 of 2010 1. NAND PRASAD CHAUHAN S/O LATE BAL KRISHNA CHAUHAN R/O VILL.- AMARPUR SAPAHI, P.S.- DAROLI, DISTT.- SIWAN, PRESENTLY CHAIRMAN, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SIWAN 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 4. SUSHILA SINGH W/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- PARHOLI, P.S.- LAKTINDIGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 5. INDU DEVI W/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- BAJRAHIYA, P.S.- MAHRAJGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 6. PUNAM DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- SALDAR, P.S.- GUTHANI, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 7. SAMSA KHATOON W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- MADIPUR, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 8. MADHAV SINGH S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.-RAMPUR, P.S.- JAMMO, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 9. SANGITA KUMARI W/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- BHIMPUR, P.S.- BARHAIYA, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 10. JAY PRAKASH PANDEY S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- KARSAR, P.S.- RAGHUNATHPUR, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 11. NAGENDRA UPADHYAY S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- RAMPUR, P.S.- BHAGWANDPUR, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 12. BINOD TIWARI S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- GANCHHUCHAPAR, P.S.- JIRADEI, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 13. NANDILAL YADAV S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- NAYA, P.O.+P.S.- MAIRWAN, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 14. SUDAMA THAKUR S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 15. BRAJ KISHORE YADAV S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 16. JITESH SINGH S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- DAJWA BELBASA, P.S.- ANDAR, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 17. LAL BABU SAH S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- JAMAPUR, P.S.- JIRADEO, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 18. NIDHI KIRTI W/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- MUBARAKPUR, P.S.- CHAINOPUR, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 19. JULFEKAR ALI S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- LAUAN, P.S.- BARHARIYA, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 2 20. UMA DEVI W/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- BASANTPUR, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 21. SANJAY RAM S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- SHEODHAR HATA, P.S.- BARHHARIYA, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 22. SUMITRA DEVI W/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- SOHRAI, P.S.- GUTHANI, DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 23. RIJWAN S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- RAMAPARNI, P.S. AND DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN 24. BINDI DEVI W/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O VILL.- SAKRA NAWRANGA, P.S.- TARWARA, GAUTAMBUDHNAGAR ( TARWARA ), DISTT.- SIWAN, WARD COUNCILOR, ZILA PARISAD, SIWAN *** For the petitioner : M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Sr Advocate & Amit Shrivastava, Manish Kumar, Maruth Nath Roy, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr S K Ghosh, AAG – II For the pvt respondents M/s Mukesh Kant, Mrigank Mauli, Sunil Kr, Vinay Mistri, Advocates *** 2 09.03.2010 The petitioner is the Chairman of the Zila Parishad, Siwan and by this writ petition challenges letter No 355 dated 22.02.2010 by which the meeting of the Zila Parishad has been called for considering no confidence motion against him and the Vice Chairman. The notice has been issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner –cum- Chief Executive Officer of Siwan Zila Parishad under the orders of the Collector, Siwan. Large number of members, who had requisitioned the said meeting, had appeared through vakalatnama, though not all. All have been heard in the matter and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. Mr Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing 3 on behalf of the petitioner raises a very short issue of law. He submits that Annexure-1 dated 15.02.2010 is the requisition calling for a meeting to consider no confidence motion against the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Zila Parishad. He submits that as madatorily required, the requisition contains no charge whatsoever. The requisition then having been received by the petitioner, he refused to fix the date as he was an interested party and informed the Collector accordingly and pursuant thereto, notice, as contained in Annexure-4 vide letter No 355 dated 22.02.2010, was issued convening such a special meeting. This notice also did not contain any charge whatsoever. The meeting is scheduled to be held tomorrow that is on 10.03.2010. The submission is that requisitioning such a meeting and notifying such a meeting both are wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 70 (4) (iv) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. On behalf of some of the respondents, it is stated that subsequent to the requisition being filed, memo of charges were also filed on 17.02.2010. That should be taken to be sufficient compliance. Having heard the parties, in my considered opinion, the meeting, as requisitioned for consideration of no confidence motion, is wholly without jurisdiction and is in conflict with and in violation of Section 70 (4) (iv) of the Act. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the deficiency in stating the charges in requisition can be made up by subsequent charges being 4 forwarded, the notice of meeting, as issued under authority of the Collector, Siwan, did not contain any charge whatsoever. That being so, the meeting was convened without charges which cannot be done. Further, when a requisition is made then it can only be acted upon if there are charges alongwith the requisition because if acting upon the requisition immediately a meeting is to be called in absence of charge, no meeting can be called. Thus seen, the requisition and the notice of meeting both must contain charges. In the present case, charges being absent at both the stages, the very calling of meeting is without jurisdiction. Thus, the notice calling for the meeting based on the requisition as aforesaid, cannot be sustained in law and is, accordingly, set aside. Annexure-4 is quashed. The writ application is allowed. This will not prevent the members of the Zila Parishad in bringing fresh requisition in accordance with law if they are so advised. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)