IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8290 of 2009 KAMRUDDIN MIAN S/O LATE MAHABOOB MIAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JUAFAR, PS- CHHAURADANO, DISTT-EAST CHAMPARAN--------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMNT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. SUPERVISING OFFICER, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT PANCHAYAT ELECTION OFFICER, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 4. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, MOTIHARI EAST CHAMPARAN 5. B.D.O. CHHARADANO,EAST CHAMPARAN 6. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECY,PATNA 7. SECY. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,PATNA--RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary Sr. Advocate & Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh,Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sarvadeo Singh,Advocate For the State: Mr.S.K.Sinha,AC to GP-17 For the Respondent Mr.S.P.Srivastava,Advocate For the E.Commission:Mr.S. Nilesh,Advocate --------- 3 16.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner who is the Up-Mukhiya is stated to have been elected to the said post in a meeting held for the said purpose. But after the declaration of result or resolution declaring so, by virtue of letter dated 28.5.2009 as well as by letter dated 16.6.2009 issued by Supervising Officer, Panchayati Raj Department and District Panchayat Raj Officer, East Champaran, Motihari respectively the resolution of the election of the petitioner to the said post has been set aside. The reasoning stated in the communication specially annexure-7, is that since an absconder Mukhiya had presided over the meeting, therefore, the entire decision rendered in the said meeting is illegal. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that there is no substantive provision in any of the sections - 2 - of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 or any rule made thereunder to declare any decision taken in the meeting, headed by the elected Mukhiya, even if he was an absconder to be illegal. There are provisions for declaring an absconder to be disqualified from holding the post of Mukhiya. But till such order is passed, he cannot be said to be disqualified to sit in any meeting or any decision taken in the same cannot be said to be illegal. An intervention application has been filed by one Matukdhari Choudhary who is said to have been ousted in the said meeting. He wants to support the action taken by the State authorities. Learned counsel for the State was directed to assist the Court on question as to under what power and authority the impugned orders have come to be passed by them. The submission at the bar in this regard is that the State Government has due authority under section 156 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 to issue directions. To save the grass root democracy from criminal elements with the object of public good, the intervention was made by the State under section 156 of the Act. Section 156 is quoted hereunder for ready reference: “156: Directions from Government:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance, it shall be lawful for the Government to issue directions to any Panchayat in matters relating to state and National policies, Government Programmes and any other matter of public importance and such directions shall be binding on the Panchayat. (2) The Government may:- (a) call for any record or register or other document in possession or under the control of - 3 - any Panchayat; (b) require any Panchayat to furnish any return, plan, estimate, statement, account or statistics; and (c ) require any Panchayat to furnish any information or report on any matter related/connected with such Panchayat. “ On reading of the above section it does not dawn upon this Court to accept the submission which has been made at the bar. By no stretch of imagination section 156 of the Act empowers the State authority to pass a direction against an elected member debarring him, which is otherwise not provided for in any of the substantive provisions of the Act or its rule. It is urged that the action taken by the respondents is in the larger public interest. Answer to the said submission is that the larger public interest cannot be a ground for intervention or exercise of power which is not otherwise supported by any law. Section 156 of the Act does envisage passing of direction or order which has not been provided by the legislature while enacting the law. Learned counsel for the intervenor says that he is on the receiving end and he has been illegally ousted from the said post when there was no document for proper convening of the meeting. The Court can only observe that the subject matter of challenge is not the meeting as such but absconding Mukhiya presiding over the said meeting and the legality of it. In totality, the law being what it is, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent authorities had exercised power - 4 - beyond their jurisdiction. They had no authority to pass such orders de hors the law in this regard. The impugned orders dated 28.5.2009 as well as dated 16.6.2009 contained in annexures 6 and 7 respectively are hereby quashed. This writ application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)