IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15037 of 2010 SANJU DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 04. 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner who is stated to be the Up Pramukh, Panchayati Samiti Bind at Nalanda is aggrieved by the notice dated 2.9.2010 of the Executive Officer, fixing 10.9.2010 for holding of the special meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that the notice for the special meeting is not in consonance under Section 44 (3) (V) of the Bihar Raj Panchayat Act 2006 which reads as follows:- “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.” The submission therefore is that in absence of any illustration of the reasons or charges based which the no confidence motion was proposed to be moved having been mentioned in the notice dated 2.9.2010, it does not fulfill the statutory requirements 2 and is not a notice in accordance with the statutory provisions. Any further action in holding a meeting in pursuance of such notice shall palpably be illegal. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State submits that the requisition for the special meeting was appended to the notice dated 2.9.2010. But he very fairly acknowledges that he is unable to demonstrate whether the enclosure contained details the charges on basis of which no confidence was to be tabled. A requisition for special meeting for a no-confidence motion is one aspect of the matter and the reasons on which the no confidence is proposed to be moved is another aspect of the mater. The respondents cannot confront the Court with their conclusions by withholding of relevant documents especially when the impugned order dated 2.9.2010 admits of no ambiguity with regard to non-compliance of statutory provisions. If stand of the respondents was of a deemed compliance, it was for them to place full materials to satisfy the Court. They have clearly failed to do so. The next submission on behalf of the respondents is with regard to the interim order dated 9.9.2010 that by a bona fide error the special meeting has been held on the date fixed and that they had no intention of 3 flouting the orders of the Court. An Act done in violation of an order of the Court may have two aspects. One aspect shall be the question of contempt. The other shall be the nullity of such an order or act done contrary to the order of the Court. It is not necessary to first initiate contempt proceeding only whereafter the Court can take action with regard to any act done contrary to an order of the Court. The Court passing the interim order has adequate powers without initiating contempt to either make a declaration of a nullity of the act done contrary to the order of the Court or to set right the wrong done by violating the order of the Court without going into issues of contempt. In A.I.R. 1983 Patna 8 (Nawal Kishore Prasad Sinha and etc. Versus State of Bihar and Others) it has been held as follows:- “8……..The question of committal or non-committal under the contempt of Court’s Act is one of the discretion of the Court and can be exercised when this Court is fully satisfied that there has been deliberate attempt to flout the order of this Court. That will depend on the facts of each case, the nature of the order and the act complained of. But without initiating a proceeding for contempt this Court can quash any order or proceeding done in disregard of such orders which may also tantamount to contempt. It is very difficult to accept this extreme proposition that the acts done in 4 defiance of Court’s order can only be dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act where a complete machinery is provided for and in no other manner……………” The order dated 2.9.2010 is therefore clearly not sustainable. Any action done in pursuance of such an illegal notice, on the face of it unsustainable and any meeting held in pursuance of such illegal notice contrary to the direction of the Court is a nullity. The notice dated 2.9.2010 and any fresh resolution passed in pursuance of the same are therefore set aside. The application stands allowed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)