IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13840 of 2008 NEELAM KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With C.W.J.C. No.12925 of 2008 Vishwanath Prasad Kushwaha Versus The State of Bihar & ors. C.W.J.C. No.13840 of 2008 For the Petitioner:Mr.K. Ravish,Advocate For the State: Mr. Ram Subhash Singh For Respopndent No.8: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha,Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar,Advocate C.W.J.C. No.12925 of 2008 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha,Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar,Advocate For the State: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar,S.C.16 Mr.Kumar Pankaj, J.C. to S.C.16 For Respondent No.8: Mr.K. Ravish,Advocate --- 5. . 16.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent No.8 in the first case, who is also the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.12925/2008. Both the writ applications pertain to the same matter and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner, Neelam Kumari, in C.W.J.C.No.13840 of 2008 seeks quashing of the order contained in memo No.1221 dated 4.9.2008 ( Annexure-14) issued under the signature of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Muzaffarpur, i.e., Respondent No.5, by which it has been informed that in view of Section 18 (4) (i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the Aam Sabha of Gram Panchayat Raj Tengrari under Meenapur Block of Muzaffarpur District will be held on 18.9.2008 at 11.00 A.M. in the B.R.C. Campus and for further 2 consequential reliefs. The petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.12925/2008, namely, Bisahwanath Prasad Kushwaha, on the other hand, has prayed that effect should be given to the letter dated 3.7.2008 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Muzaffarpur for holding a meeting regarding no confidence motion against the Mukhiya of Tengrari Panchayat, namely, Neelam Kumari, petitioner of the first case. The facts relating to the decision in the present matter are that the petitioner, Neelam Kumari, in C.W.J.C. No.13840 of 2008 was the elected Mukhia of the Tengrari Gram Panchayat. About 1600 members of the Gram Panchayat presented a requisition before the District Panchayat Raj Officer for convening a meeting/ Aam Sabha for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner- Mukhia. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, thereafter issued a notice dated 3.7.2008 for holding the meeting of the Aam Sabha on 14.7.2008. The petitioner along with his supporters protested against the same stating that the signatures of a number of persons have been obtained by coercion and by playing fraud. Upon such protest, respondent No.5 postponed the meeting and directed the Block Development Officer, Meenapur to verify the matter, who at first expressed his practical difficulties in complying with the order; subsequently, the matter was verified and it was reported that as many as 1035 persons have supported the requisition out of total 4765 members of the Gram Panchayat and accordingly, the requisition had the support of more than 1/5th members of the Gram Panchayat as required under the statutory provisions. 3 Accordingly, a fresh notice was issued on 4.9.2008 by the District Panchayat Officer for convening the Aam Sabha for considering no confidence motion on 18.9.2008. The petitioner and his supporters raised objections in the said matter, which was directed by respondent No.5 to the Block Development Officer by his letter dated 5.9.2008 to further verify. Thereafter it appears that the matter was referred to the State Election Commission and the meeting of the Aam Sabha was kept in abeyance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless a requisition is submitted by 1/5th of the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat, no meeting of the Aam Sabha for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner- Mukhiya could have been convened. It is submitted that the requisition itself being the result of fraud and forgery, the authorities ought not to have acted upon the same and unless a duly verified requisition by 1/5th of the total number of members is presented before the authorities, no such meeting for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner ought to be held. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 in C.W.J.C.No.13848 of 2008, who is also the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.12925/2008 and the Up-Mukhiya, on the other hand, submits that the matter having been once verified by the authorities it was not open to them to have directed the meeting to be kept in abeyance on the basis of repeated protest being made by the petitioner with the sole purpose of somehow postponing the meeting of the Aam Sabha so as to prolong and protract her tenure as the Mukhia of the 4 Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the State has brought to the notice of this Court a Circular dated 23.12.2003 issued by the Secretary, Panchayat Raj in which a detailed procedure has been laid down for the conduct of the meeting of the Aam Sabha for considering no confidence motion against the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted on the basis of the counter affidavit that the District authorities have wrongly referred the matter to the State Election Commission, which has no jurisdiction in the matter of consideration of no confidence motion and they were required to act in terms of the earlier Circular which, though issued under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, would still apply in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 2006. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions, this Court considers the action of respondent No.5 and the other authorities responsible for convening and conducting the Aam Sabha for considering no confidence motion as wholly uncalled for. There was no occasion for the said authorities to have refereed the matter to the State Election Commission, which has no jurisdiction in such matter. The removal through no confidence motion of a Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat is not at all connected with the election to the Gram Panchayat and thus the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission is not involved in such matters. In view of the fact that there was a pre-existing Circular laying down details of the procedure to be complied with in such matters; the authorities ought to have acted upon the same to the extent 5 the same does not conflict with the provisions of the Act of 2006. So far as the question of no confidence motion against the Mukhiya is concerned, this Court finds the said Circular as proper guidelines in the matter and the authorities at the district level ought to have acted in accordance with the same. It is made clear that there cannot be repeated raising of objections against a requisition and repeated verification of such objections, as the same only tantamounts to an attempt by a Mukhiya to somehow delay the day of reckoning. Having once verified and found that more than 1/5th of the members of the Gram Panchayat had submitted requisition in a valid manner, the authorities had rightly fixed the date and there was no occasion for again keeping the meeting of the Aam Sabha in abeyance for considering no confidence motion in abeyance. So far as the Circular dated 23.12.2003 is concerned, this Court is of the view that the provisions of paragraph Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the said Circular refer to the presence of at least 2/3rd of the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat and the same is based upon the earlier Act of 1993 where the requirement for removal of a Mukhiya through no confidence motion was that it should be supported by at least 2/3rd members of the Gram Panchayat, whereas under the present enactment of 2006 the requirement is that the resolution for considering no confidence motion is to be passed by a simple majority of the total number of voters. Hence reference made in the Circular dated 23.12.2003 to 2/3rd of the total number of voters of the Gram Panchayat should now be read as a simple majority of the total number of voters 6 In the light of the above discussions, C.W.J.C.No.13840/2008 is dismissed and C.W.J.C.No.12925/2008 is disposed of with the direction that the respondent No.5 and other concerned authorities shall forthwith proceed in the matter and fix a date for convening the Aam Sabha meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the Mukhiya in accordance with the provisions of law and the guidelines laid down by the State Government in the aforesaid Circular, subject to the modification as pointed out above. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned A.A.G.6 and learned Standing Counsel No.16. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)