IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15815 of 2008 1. Arbind Thakur, son of Sri Saryug Thakur, resident of village Katauna, P.S. Malepur, District- Jamui 2. Kedar Prasad Yadav, son of Sri Sita Yadav, resident of village Numar, P.S. Barhat, District- Jamui Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Collector, Jamui 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamui 4. Block Development Officer, Barhat, Jamui 5. Ropen Kumar Singh, son of Sushil Kumar Singh, resident of village and post office Barhat, Jamui 6. Adra Devi, wife of Niranjan Singh, resident of village and post office Malleypur, P.S. Barhat, Jamui 7. Kausilya Devi, wife of Karru Saw, of village and P.O. Dabra, P.S. Barhat, Jamui 8. Mahendra Paswan, son of Munshi Paswan, of village Chujhidih, P.S. Barhat, Jamui 9. Janki Devi, wife of Titar Paswan, of village & P.O. Patauna, P.S. Barahat, Jamui 10. Dipnendra Singh, son of Adhik Singh of village Bhaluka P.O. and P.S. Barhat, Jamui 11. Rajesh Hansda, son of Raghunath Hansda, of village Pasrahi, P.S. Khodagrah, P.S. Barhat, Jamui 12. Ramdeo Manjhi, son of Late Baijy Manjhi of village Katka, P.O. Numar, P.S. Barhat, Jamui 13. Naresh Karo, son of Basudeo Karoof, village Gurmaha, P.S. and P.O. Barhat, Jamui 14. Renu Devi, wife of Shri Vijay Kumar of Bongawan, P.S. Barhat, District Jamui ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate For Resp. 5 to 13: Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.Rahman, Asstt. Counsel to SC 17 ----------- 2. 11.02.2009 I.A. No. 6775/2008 The interlocutory application has been filed for amendment of the prayer made in the writ petition so as to challenge the resolution of the special meeting held on 1.11.2008 by which no confidence motion has been passed against the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. - 2 - In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for amendment is allowed. I.A. No. 6775/2008 is accordingly disposed of. I.A. No. 7496/2008 The interlocutory application has been filed for transposition of respondent no. 14, Renu Devi as petitioner no. 3 to the writ petition. It is stated that the said respondent is the Pramukh against whom the requisition and subsequently the motion of no confidence has been passed and accordingly she should be transposed as petitioner no. 3 so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. On a consideration of the entire matter, the prayer is allowed and respondent no. 14 Renu Devi is directed to be transposed as petitioner no. 3 to the writ petition. I.A. No. 7496/2008 is accordingly disposed of. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 13 and learned counsel for the State. This is the second round of litigation in the present matter. Earlier the petitioner no.3, Renu Devi, the Pramukh of Barhat Panchayat Samiti, District- Jamui had filed CWJC No. 12654/08 challenging the resolution of no confidence dated 26.7.2008 against her and the notice dated 19.7.2008 and by order dated 30.9.2008 this Court had allowed the writ petition. Thereafter eight out of eleven elected members of the Panchayat Samiti gave fresh requisition on 1.10.2008 for convening special meeting to consider no confidence motion against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. On no action being taken - 3 - by petitioner no. 3, the Pramukh, on 23.10.2008 the Up-pramukh fixed the date for convening the special meeting on 1.11.2008 and accordingly notice dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure-3) was issued. In the special meeting the no confidence motion was passed and petitioner no. 3 was removed from the office of Pramukh. Thereafter fresh elections have also been held on 22.11.2008 in which respondent no. 5, Ropen Kumar Singh has been elected as the Pramukh. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged two grounds in support of his case. It is firstly submitted that the requisition was never presented to the Pramukh-petitioner no.3 which is a mandatory requirement of Section 44(3)(i) of the Act. It is further submitted that the Executive Officer did not initiate any file and present the same before the Pramukh which is again a violation of the said Section. In support of the same learned counsel for the petitioners refers to a letter dated 8.11.2008 (Annexure-4) written by the petitioner no.3, Renu Devi to the Block Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Panchayat Samiti, Barhat in which she has alleged that he had not given information to her by way of file and later on she has learnt from unknown sources that he had presented the file before her but she had allegedly refused to give any direction on the same which is totally a false statement and she has accordingly directed him to present the file before her as early as possible. Learned counsels for the respondents on the other hand submit that the petitioner no. 3, Ex-Pramukh had played a very shady role contrary to the statutory obligations when she repeatedly refused - 4 - to receive the requisition sent to her by the special messenger. The same story was repeated with respect to the requisition sent on 1.10.2008 to her by registered post when repeatedly on 3.10.2008, 4.10.2008 and 6.10.2008 it is endorsed that she was not met and gone out and ultimately on 7.10.2008 she had refused to receive the same. The said fact of refusal has as stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State-respondent nos. 2 to 4 has not been denied by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents also produced the original registered cover which has been refused and returned for the perusal of the Court. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is clearly of the view that the petitioner no. 3, the then Pramukh of Barhat Panchayat Samiti has deliberately tried not to receive the requisition sent to her personally or through special messenger and also the one sent to her through registered post. This amounts to a gross violation by her of the statutory duty cast upon her in the matter. The obligation of the requisitionist to present the requisition before the Pramukh implies a corresponding statutory obligation on the part of the Pramukh to receive the same. This Court is repeatedly noticing the tendency on the part of many of the Pramukhs of the Panchayat Samitis not to receive the requisition and thereafter take technical pleas in this Court in such matters. Such action of the Pramukh in the present matter is to be deprecated and not encouraged and she cannot be allowed to take a technical plea on the said ground in the Court, when there is absolutely no reason why - 5 - the requisitionists will not present the requisition before the Pramukh when it is in their interest to do so, especially when the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner no. 3 was allowed due to non- compliance of the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioner no. 3 has deliberately tried not to receive the requisition and sought to raise various pleas on that ground before this Court. The same being impermissible is rejected. Thus, in the light of the discussions made above, there appears to be no merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. S. Panday (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)