IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15005 of 2010 RAMKALI DEVI W/O MANOJ DAS R/O VILLAGE-JORJA, P.S- BAHERI, DISTT.- DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT BLOCK PRAMUKH OF BAHERI BLOCK, DISTT.- DARBHANGA……………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH S.D.O., DARBHANGA 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER-CUM-DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, DARBHANGA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAHERI, DARBHANGA……… RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Aditya Nr. Singh No. 1, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, AC to AAG-7 For the State Election Commission : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate. . ----------- 02/ 21.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar as well as learned counsel for the State Election Commission and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the resolution of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner in special meeting dated 30.08.2010 by the members of Baheri Block Panchayat Samiti within the district of Darbhanga. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the said resolution on two grounds. First ground is that the earlier requisition for No Confidence Motion was rejected on 29.10.09 (Annexure-2) and subsequent requisition dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-3) was brought within one year. Second ground is - 2 - that requisition dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-3) does not contain specific allegations and charges against the Pramukh (petitioner). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the said circumstances the entire proceeding is violative of the provisions of Section 44 (iii) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). 4. So far the first point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is quite apparent from order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure-2) that the earlier requisition for No Confidence Motion had not been defeated in any special meeting of the members of the Panchayat Samiti, rather it was rejected by the authority on a technical ground that it was filed within two years of election of the Pramukh, as according to Section 44 (3) (ii) of the Act such requisition can be made only after two years. In the said circumstances, the requisitionists were fully entitled to file another requisition after completion of two years from the date of election of the Pramukh which they had done by sending fresh requisition dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-3) when two years had completed. In the said circumstances, there is no violation of the aforesaid provision of law in filing the fresh requisition dated 30.08.2010. 5. So far the second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, from a bare perusal of requisition dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-3) it is quite apparent that seven charges had been enumerated in the said requisition which sufficiently show that the requisitionists have declared the - 3 - grounds on which No Confidence Motion was to be placed in special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. In the said circumstances also there is no violation of the provision of Section 44 (3) (ii) of the Act. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 7. Any observation made in this order should not affect the proceeding of No Confidence Motion, which is going to be held soon. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)