IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.230 of 2009 AMOLA DEVI wife of Ramu Ram, resident of village Narkatiya, P.S. Jamalpur,District Darbhanga, presently Member, Panchayat Samiti Narkatiya-Bhandariya Gram Panchayat Raj, P.S.Jamalpur,District Darbhanga … … Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj,Government of Bihar, Ptna 2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Biraul, District Darbhanga 4. The Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kiratpur, Block Kiratpur,District Darbhanga 5. Laleshwar Pandey, son of Shri Bauku Pandey, resident of village Rasiyari, P.S.Ghanshyampur,District Darbhanga, presently Member, Panchayat Samiti, Rasiari-Pauni, Gram Panchayat Raj, P.S.Ghanshyampur,District Darbhanga 6. Budhan Sada, son of Shri Faujdar Sada, resident of village Kalyan, P.S.Jamalpur,District Darghanga, presently, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Kiratpur Gram Panchyat Raj, P.S. Jamalpur, District Darbhanga 7. Hafoz Jamil Akhtar, son of late Md. Mustafa Shah, resident of village Jhagarua, P.S.Jamalpur, District Darbhanga at present Up-Pramukh, Kiratpur, Block Panchayat Samiti,District DFarbhanga 8. Siyo Devi, wive of Rameshwar Pandit, resident of village Sirniyan, P.S.Jamalpur,District Darbhanga, presently, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Jhagarua- Takharaha Gram Panchyayat Raj, P.S. Jamalpur,District Darbhanga 9. Anita Devi, wife of Ramnjit Yadav, resident of village Kuwaul, P.S.Jamalpur,District Darbhanga, presently Member, Panchayat Samiti, Kuwaul-Danga Gram Panchayat Raj, P.S. Jamalpur,District Darbhanga 10. Domani Devi, wife of Brahmdeo Sahani, resident of village Jamalpur, P.S. Jamalpur,District Darbhanga, presently, 2 Member, Panchayat Samiti, Jamalpur Gram Panchayat Raj, P.S. Jamalpur,District Darbhanga 11. Anwar Ali Khan, son of late Asgar Ali Khan, resident of village Jamalpur, P.S.Jamalpur,District Darbhanga, presently, Member, Panchayat Samiti, Jamalpur Gram Panchayat Raj, P.S. Jamalpur,District Darbhanga 12. Amrika Devi, wife of Gauri Kant Ram, resident of village Ramkhetriya P.S.Jamalpur,District Darbhanga, presently, Member, Panchayat Samiti Khaisha-Jamalpur Gram Panchayat Raj, P.S. Jamalpur,District Darghanga … … Respondents Ist Set 13. Rabindra Pandey son of Sri Shobhit Pandey, resident of village Rasiyari, P.S.Ghanshyampur, District Darghanga, at present, Prakhand Pramukh, Kiratpur Block, Panchayat Samiti,District Darghanga … … Respondent 2nd Set. For the appellant: Mr. Nakul Kr. Jamuar For the State: Mr. D.N.Yadav, A.A.G.6 ----------- 2. 20.3.2009 The writ petitioner, respondent no. 13 herein, was the Pramukh of Kiratpur Panchayat Samiti for which an election came to be held in 2006. He approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2147 of 2009 challenging the meeting convened to consider the „No Confidence Motion‟ without giving seven clear days notice as provided by the Statute. The learned Single Judge at the admission stage held that there was no clear seven days notice of fixing the date of meeting to 3 consider the „No Confidence Motion‟ and allowed the writ application by order dated 12.2.2009 directing the Block Development Officer to issue a fresh notice convening special meeting by giving 7 clear days notice. The appellant, respondent no. 10 in the writ petition, a Member of the Panchayat Samiti, has preferred this appeal against the said order. On the basis of the above direction after giving seven days clear notice 16.2.2009 was the date fixed for special meeting to consider the „No Confidence Motion‟. Now it is submitted that „No Confidence Motion‟ was passed in the proposed meeting and the election is fixed. According to the appellant the order of the learned Single Judge is bad because it was passed without notice to the appellant(10th respondent). It is also submitted that the direction of the learned Single Judge to the Executive Officer of the Samiti to issue fresh notice is also illegal. First of all, we are of the opinion that this appeal has no merit as it is filed 4 against the interim order fixing the date of meeting and subsequently the meeting was held and „ No Confidence Motion‟ was passed after giving seven clear days notice by the Executive Officer of the Samiti. It is contended that the Executive Officer of the Samiti has no power to issue the notice. Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 reads as follows: “(3)(i) A Pramukh/up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy of the Executive Officer of the panchayat Samaiti, by not less than one third of the total number of members elected directly from the territorial constituencies of the Panchayat Samiti. The Executive Officer shall immediately bring the requisition to the notice of the Pramukh. The Pramukh shall convene such meeting on a date falling within 15 days of such requisition. If the Pramukh fails to call the special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or one third of the total number of directly elected members may fix a date for such meeting and require the Executive Officer to give notice to the members and to take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. The Executive Officer shall necessarily issue such notice in time and convene the meeting. No such meeting shall be postponed once the notice for the same has been issued. No quorum shall be required for the special meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion. 5 (ii) No confidence motion shall not be moved against the Pramukh or the Up- Pramukh within the first two year period of their tenure. (iii) If the motion of no confidence brought against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both is once rejected, no fresh motion of no confidence against the Pramukh or the Up- Pramukh or both, as the case may be, shall be brought before the Panchayat Samiti within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion. (iv) No confidence motion against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh or both, as the case may be, shall not be brought during the last six months of the term of the Panchayat Samaiti as mentioned in Section 39(1) of this Act. (v) Such reasons/charges, on the basis of which no confidence motion has to be moved against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, shall be clearly mentioned in the notice of meeting called to consider the no confidence motion. (vi) As soon as the meeting called under this section begins, the presiding member of this meeting shall read out the motion on which the meeting has been called to consider before the members present and declare it open for discussion. Any discussion on the motion shall not be adjourned. (vii) During discussion, opportunity shall be given to the Pramukh/Up- Pramukh against whom no confidence motion has been moved for his defence before the Panchayat Samaiti. The motion shall be put to vote on the same day after discussion and shall take place by secret ballot in the prescribed manner. (viii) In case of no confidence motion against a Pramukh, the meeting shall be presided by the Up-Pramukh; in case of motion against Up-Pramukh by the Pramukh and In case of motion against both Pramukh and Up-Pramukh, by any member elected from among the members of the Panchayat Samiti present 6 in the meeting. Incase of the post of UI-Pramukh being vacant or his absence from the meeting convened for discussion on no confidence motion against the Pramukh or the post of Pramukh being vacant or his absence from the meeting convened for discussion on no confidence motion against the Up-Pramukh, as the case may be, shall be presided over by any member elected from amongst the directly elected members from the territorial constituency of the Panchayat Samiti present in the meeting. Section 46 (3,4 and 5) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 reads as follows” “(3) The date of the first meeting of the Panchayat Samiti after its constitution shall be fixed by the Subdivisional Magistrate who shall preside at such meeting and date of each subsequent ordinary meeting shall be fixed at the previous meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, provided that the Pramukh may for sufficient reason alter the day of the meeting to a subsequent date. The Pramukh may, whenever he thinks fit and upon the written request of not less than one third of the total number of members and on a date within fifteen days from the receipt of such request shall call a special meeting. Such request shall specify the object for which the meeting is proposed to be called. If the Pramukh fails to calla special meeting, the up-Pramukh or one-third of the total number of members may call the special meeting for a day not more than fifteen days after presentation of such request and require the Executive Officer to give notice to the members and to take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting.” (4) Ten clear day‟s notice of an ordinary meeting and seven clear days‟ notice of a special meeting specifying the time at which such meeting is to be held and the business to be transacted thereat shall be sent to the members and affixed at the office 7 of the Panchyat Samiti. Such notice shall include in case of a special meeting any motion or proposition mentioned in the written request made for such meeting. (5) Half of the total number of members of the Panchyat Samit shall form a quorum for transaction business at a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. If at the time appointed for the meeting a quorum is not present, the person presiding shall wait for one hour and if within such period there is a quorum, proceed with the meeting, but if within such period there is no quorum, the person presiding shall adjourn the meeting to such hour on some future day as he may deem fit. He shall similarly adjourn the meeting at any time after it has begun if his attention is drawn to the want of quorum. At such adjourned meetings a quorum of at least one fifth of the total number of member shall be required and the business which would have been brought before the original meeting shall be transacted.” The above formality was complete before the Ist date of meeting. In compliance with the provisions notice was issued but since there was no clear 7 days notice as required, the Executive Officer issued fresh notice giving 7 clear days by the impugned order. All other provisions regarding transacting no confidence motion were carried on. The Executive Officer had issued notice for holding the meeting of the Panchyat Samiti as the learned Single Judge found in the impugned order that no clear seven days notice was given earlier and, therefore, 8 directed for issuance of a fresh notice as that was the statutory requirement. We see no illegality in the order. Thereafter, the Executive Officer had issued notice giving seven clear days fixing the meeting and the meeting was held and resolution of „no confidence motion‟ was passed. The resolution of no confidence was passed is not the subject matter of consideration before the learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Kanth ( J.B. Koshy,C.J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)