IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17812 of 2009 DEVI PRASAD CHAUDHARY S/O SRI ANHOTI CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- PANCHTAKI RAM, P.O.- PANCHTAKI JADU, P.S.- BAIRGANIA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI, PRESENTLY THE PRAMUKH OF BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SITAMARHI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER SITAMARHI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - CUM - EXECUTIVE OFFICER BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 7. RAJENDRA MAHTO S/O LATE MUKHLAL MAHTO R/O VILL.- BENGAHI NANDWARA, P.S.- BAIRGANIA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 8. JAWAHAR PRASAD S/O SRI LAKSHMAN DEO SAH ELECTED MEMBER OF BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI THROUGH THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - CUM - EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 9. AJAY KUMAR S/O SRI RAM EKBAL MAHTO ELECTED MEMBER OF BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI THROUGH THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - CUM - EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 10. GUDDI DEVI W/O SRI SUBODH KUMAR ELECTED MEMBER OF BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI THROUGH THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - CUM - EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 11. AMBEYA KHATOON W/O MD. LAL BABU ELECTED MEMBER OF BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI THROUGH THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - CUM - EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 12. FATMA BEGUM W/O MD. HIFJUL RAHMAN ELECTED MEMBER OF BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI THROUGH THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - CUM - EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 13. RANI DEVI W/O SRI RAM BABU PRASAD ELECTED MEMBER OF BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI THROUGH THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - CUM - EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 14. RIYAZ KHAN S/O LATE NASRULLAH KHAN ELECTED MEMBER OF BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI THROUGH THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - CUM - EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 15. RAM BABU RAI S/O LATE PARMESHWAR RAI ELECTED MEMBER OF BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI THROUGH THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - CUM - EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 16. SAMA NAZ PRAVIN W/O MD. ERAR KHAN ELECTED MEMBER OF BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI THROUGH THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - CUM - 2 - - EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAIRGANIA BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. 03 26.03.2010 The petitioner was the Pramukh of Bairgania Block Panchayat Samiti. He had filed this writ petition against the notice convening special meeting to consider no confidence against him in which private-respondent no.7 (Rajendra Mahto) has been noticed to attend as well. He is aggrieved by this calling of Rajendra Mahto to the said meeting. By subsequent interlocutory applications, it has been brought on record that notwithstanding petitioner’s protest the meeting was held in which out of 11 elected members 7 participated including the petitioner. Petitioner protested to the meeting, however, votes were taken. There being 6 votes in support of no confidence motion. He has been removed by further interlocutory application. It has been brought on record that as a consequence of vacancy caused by his removal fresh election has been held and respondent no.8 has been elected in place of petitioner. All these actions are challenged in this writ petition. Petitioner’s challenge to these are based on the allegations that by application dated 08.09.2009 (Annexure-4), respondent no.7 had resigned from his membership of the Block Panchayat Samiti, which resignation was accepted by the petitioner, who was the Pramukh, on expiry of 7 days on 16.09.2009 (Annexure-5). It is alleged that respondent no.6, who is the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer of the - 3 - said Panchayat Samiti by communication dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure-6), communicated to various authorities including the District Magistrate, Panchayat Raj Officer, Sub Divisional Officer and to all other members that respondent no.7 had resigned and, as such, would not be permitted to participate in any further meeting. Notwithstanding this, when the request was made on 27.10.2009, and when requisition was made by 5 elected members on 27.10.2009 to the Executive Officer, who then placed the matter before the Petitioner, the petitioner rejected the request of special meeting on the ground that the requisition is not being addressed to him. He was neither obliged to entertain this nor was obliged to pass any order thereon. However, pursuant to directions of this Court dated 19.11.2009, passed in C.W.J.C. No.15146 of 2009, petitioner convened a meeting but directed the Executive Officer not to notice respondent no.7, as he had earlier resigned and his resignation had already been accepted. Notwithstanding that respondent no.7 having been noticed wrongly. All other consequences that follow as a result of his participating in the meeting were equally bad. Respondent no.7 has appeared and filed a counter affidavit categorically stating that the resignation letter is not in accordance with law and is a forgery. He has never resigned. The Executive Officer is in league with the petitioner. He continued to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti, and there is nothing illegal about the resolution passed by the majority removing petitioner - 4 - from the post of Pramukh. Having heard the parties at length and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. From the pleadings, as made by the two contesting parties, it is clear that even the authorities are taking a shifting stands from time to time with regard to resignation of respondent no.7. On 31.10.2009, the Executive Officer informs various authorities about resignation of respondent no.7, then immediately after a month he insists for calling upon a meeting. If the first communication was correct then there is a report by him holding that the signature of respondent no.7, prima facie, appears to be genuine. This Court is inept in this jurisdiction to decide and/or resolve such a dispute. In my view, such a dispute can be decided with an aid of Section 157 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, which empowers the District Magistrate to make enquiries about regularity, irregularity or mistake being committed in relation to special meetings of Panchayat Samiti in considering the no confidence motion. Here, the allegation is that a person who had resigned and as such was ineligible to participate and had been call to participate, that was a mistake and/or irregularity. Whether the fact that he had resigned or not thus become important. In my view, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sitamarhi should accordingly enquire into this whole episode and give a finding after noticing the parties and hearing them. Whether - 5 - respondent no.7 had resigned or not and whether his resignation, as aforesaid, was accepted or not. If he comes to the finding that the resignation was given by respondent no.7, then he would hold that the special meeting so convened was wrong. The meeting would, thus, be required to be reconvened after excluding respondent no.7. If he finds that respondent no.7 had resigned then considering that only 6 members including respondent no.7 voted in favour of no confidence motion, the net voting would be 5 and in a house of 11 it would not be majority. The District Magistrate would then declare that vote of no confidence was defeated and all other consequences would follow. But, if the District Magistrate comes to a finding that the resignation was not given by respondent no.7, then he would close all further matters and would not interfere any further. The removal of petitioner and the election of respondent no.8 would thus remain unaffected. It is also directed that District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sitamarhi would on production of this order before him initiate the enquiry and conclude the same within a period of one month, treating it as urgent, as it is affecting day to day working of the Panchayat Samiti, in question. Learned Counsel for the State may also inform the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Sitamarthi accordingly. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)