IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16693 of 2008 RAJENDRA @ RANJAN YADAV son of Sri Rameshwar Singh, resident of Village- Sandesh, P.S. Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. ------------ Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah. 3. The Sub-divisional officer, Bhojpur at Arrah. 4. The B.D.O- cum-Executive Officer, Sandesh, District- Bhojpur 5. Satyendra Mahto, Member Panchayat Samiti, Dihra, P.S./ Block- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. 6. Gajendra Singh, Member Panchayat Samiti, Dihra, P.S./ Block- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. 7. Lalan Yadav, Member Panchayat Samiti, North Block, P.S.- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. 8. Jai Kumar Singh, Member Panchayat Samiti, Rama Sandh South Block, P.S.- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. 9. Renu Devi Member Panchayat Samiti, Sandesh, South Block, P.S. -Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. 10. Tusa Devi, Member Panchayat Samiti, Kori Block, Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. 11. Shanti Devi, Member Panchayat Samiti, Baga Blcok, P.S. – Ajeetmabad Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. 12. Uday Kumar Member Panchayat Samiti, Dhandol Block, P.S. -Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. 13. Smt. Samati Devi, Member Panchayat Samiti, Akhgaon South, Block/ P.S. - Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. 14. Anita Devi, Member Panchayat Samiti, Akhgaon South, Block/ P.S. -Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. 15. Soni Devi, Member Panchayat Samiti, Sandesh North, P.S./ Block- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur. --------------Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ram Sukhas Singh, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 5 to 15 :- Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Adv. For the State :- S. Rahman, J.C. To S.C. 17. ------------- 3. 15.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is the second attempt by the members of the Panchayat Samiti, Sandesh to remove the petitioner by requisitioning a no- confidence motion against him. In the earlier round also the members of the Panchayat Samiti, instead of presenting the requisition to the petitioner, had merely sent the same to him through speed post on - 2 - 21.8.2008 and no action being taken by him according to them, they had themselves fixed the date for no-confidence motion on 12.9.2008 and the notice was, accordingly, issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti. This Court had quashed the notice dated 12.9.2008 with liberty to the members of the Panchayat Samiti to make fresh requisition by an order dated 20.10.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13579 of 2008. Again it appears that instead of making an attempt to present the requisition to the Pramukh, they claim to have sent copy of the requisition by Speed post on 27.10.2008, which was refused by the petitioner-Pramukh on 29.10.2008 as per endorsement in the returned letter. Thereafter it appears that the matter was placed before the petitioner, before whom the Executive Officer put his note dated 29.10.2008, but the petitioner had refused to fix the date stating that he has not received any information regarding the writ petition from a senior officer. On the same date on the basis of letter dated 12.11.2008 written by the requisitionists, the Up-Pramukh had fixed the date on 21.11.2008 and accordingly the notice dated 13.11.2008 was issued by the Executive Officer convening the special meeting on 21.11.2008 for considering no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is evident from the notice dated 13.11.2008 that no reasons/charges are mentioned in the same and thus it is violative of Section 44(3)(v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. - 3 - The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the requisition has again not been presented to the petitioner and the date of the meeting has been fixed unilaterally by the Up- Pramukh. On the basis of that Executive Officer had issued notice without the petitioner being given an opportunity to fix the date himself. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, sought to rely upon the fact that the petitioner had refused to receive the requisition sent to him by Speed post and thereafter had failed to fix the date on the file duly sent to him by the Executive Officer. It is submitted that the charges are mentioned in the requisition and therefore provisions of Section 44(3)(v) of the Act stand substantially complied with. This Court is surprised at the level of ignorance prevailing among those who are supposed to work out the constitutional provisions under Part 9 of the Constitution as detailed by the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, when for similar reasons and grounds the earlier requisition and notice has been held to be invalid by this Court and set aside with liberty to make fresh requisition. It can hardly be reiterated that under Section 44 (3)(i) of the Act, the requisition has to be presented to the Pramukh with a copy to the Executive Officer. The question of sending the requisition by post can only arise if the Pramukh or his office refuses to accept the requisition sent directly to him. The requisition is accordingly held to be non est in the eye of law. - 4 - Further, in view of the fact that the notice dated 13.11.2008 convening the special meeting does not contain the reasons/charges on the basis of which the discussions are to be made in the no-confidence motion nor was the copy of the requisition containing such reasons/charges enclosed with it, which reasons/charges are mandatory under the provisions of Section 44(3)(v) of the Act, this Court finds that the notice is invalid and accordingly quashes the same. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ application is allowed with liberty to the members of the Panchayat Samiti to make a fresh requisition as per the procedure prescribed under the Act. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)