IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16612 of 2008 SAVITA DEVI W/O Sri Narendra Kumar Neeraj R/O Village-Parbatta, P-S- Ismailpur, Block- District- Bhagalpur. Presently Chairman, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. --------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayt Raj Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 6. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Bhagalpur. 7. The Deputy Development Commissioner.-cum-Executive Officer,zila Parishad, Bhagalppur. 8. Gaurav Kumar Roy, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 9. Uma Shankar Rajak, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 10. Geeta Devi, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 11. Aman Kumar, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 12. Md. Aftab Alam Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 13. Shadab Shasheen Helal, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 14. Nutan Devi, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 15. Jay Lalita Devi, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 16. Ganori Thakur, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 17. Shiv Kuber Singh, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 18. Vikash Mandal, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpurf. 19. Savitri Devi, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 20. Premshila Devi, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 21. Vinita Singh, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 22. Kanchan Singh, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 23. Poonam Devi Nishad, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 24. Kumari Kanchan Azad, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 25. Murali Yadav, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 26. Arvind Yadav, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 27. Shweta Devi, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 28. Baby Kumari, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 29. Raushan Ara, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 30. Suprabha Bharati, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 31. Sulekha Devi, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 32. Hema Devi, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 33. Anand lata Kumari, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 34. Smt. Rinku Raj, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 35. Poonam Devi, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 36. Binod Yadav, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur 37. Smt. Kavyitri Devi, Member, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur -------------Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sashi Anugrah Narayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. - 2 - Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv. For the State :- Md. Fazal Rahman, G. P. 6. For the Zila Parshad :- Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Adv. --------------------- 2. 21.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the notice contained in Memo No. 804 dated 12.11.2008 issued by respondent no. 5, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur by which a special meeting has been convened for discussing the no-confidence motion against the petitioner-Adhyaksha on 26.11.2008 and for further direction for not holding the said special meeting. The short facts relevant to the decision of the matter are that a requisition was delivered to the petitioner by 15 out of 31 directly elected members of the Zila Parishad on 15.7.2008. The said requisition was rejected by the petitioner on 22.7.2008 on the ground that in the meantime 9 out of the 15 requisitionists had written to the Adhyaksha withdrawing the requisition and expressed full confidence in her and thus the requisition remained only by 6 members which is less than 1/5th of 31 directly elected members. The matter was thereafter taken up at the level of the District Magistrate who firstly directed the District Panchayat Raj Officer to take an affidavit from the members who had filed the requisition regarding the changed stand. In the affidavit nine members supported their withdrawing from the requisition. The District Magistrate thereafter sought guidelines from the Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Bihar, through his letter dated 30.7.2008 and 3.10.2008 which was replied by - 3 - the letter dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure- 9) pointing that there was no provision for any affidavit to be taken after a requisition is filed and requesting the District Magistrate to take action in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 (4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. Thereafter by notice dated 12.11.2008 the District Magistrate has convened the special meeting on 26.11.2008 for considering the no- confidence motion against the petitioner- Adhyaksha and also the Up- Adhyaksha, against both of whom the requisition had been presented. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is not one where the Chairman has failed to convene a meeting as required by Section 70 (4) (i) of the Bihar Panchayat Rat Act, 2006, rather this was a case where 9 of the 15 requisitionists had withdrawn from the requisition within the statutory time of seven days given for the Chairman to act and thus finding that the requisition stood supported by only 6 out of 31 members of the Zila Parishad who did not constitute the statutory minimum of 1/5th of the directly elected members, the petitioner- Adhyaksha had rightly rejected the requisition for no-confidence motion. It is thus urged that there was no failure on the part of the Chairman to convene the meeting in the present matter which alone gives a jurisdiction to the District Magistrate to convene a special meeting. The Chairman having acted within the statutory period and come to the conclusion that the requisition itself was inoperative and against the provisions of the Act, the District Magistrate had nothing more to do in the matter and he could not have convened the meeting on the basis of the requisition - 4 - which was supported only by six out of the thirty one directly elected members. Learned counsel then refers to Section 70 (4)(i) of the Act which lays down that in case of failure to convene the meeting by the Adhyaksha, the District Magistrate shall convene the meeting in the same manner which according to him means that on the expiry of seven days of the requisition if the Adhyaksha has failed to call the meeting, the District Magistrate also has power to call the meeting within a further period of seven days, because he has to call the meeting in the same manner as the Adhyaksha and since the Adhyaksha has to convene the meeting within seven days, so also the District Magistrate. It is submitted that the District Magistrate as a matter of fact acted on 12.11.2008 which is much beyond the statutory period within which he has to exercise the power. Thus the notice is non est and illegal and not as per the mandatory provisions of the Act. Learned counsel also refers to the notice dated 12.11.2008 to point out that the reasons/charges mentioned therein are vague and non-specific whereas Section 70 (4) (iv) specifically lays down that the reasons/charges must be clearly mentioned in the notice convening the special meeting. According to learned counsel all the five charges/reasons mentioned in the meeting are vague and on the basis of the same it would not at all be possible to have a proper discussion on the no-confidence motion. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 23.10.2008 a general meeting of the Zila Parishad was - 5 - convened in which a large number of matters were on the agenda and in which the nine requisitionists who had retracted were also present and none of the members expressed any lack of confidence to press for the special meeting for considering no-confidence motion to be taken up against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand mainly relies upon the provisions of Section 70 of the Act and submits that nowhere in the said section any provision has been made for retraction by the requisitionists, once the requisition has been duly signed and delivered by them. It is thus submitted by him that the requisition having once been submitted the consequences of the same shall follow and the special meeting has thereafter to be held for considering the no-confidence motion irrespective of what result would come out during the same. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and the legal provisions involved, this Court does not agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. From a consideration of Section 70 (4) (1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, it is evident that the provisions for holding a special meeting for considering the no-confidence motion have been laid out in a manner that once a proper requisition has been filed for the same then it has to be held and the same has to be done irrespective of the fact as to the number of persons who ultimately participate in the meeting since no quorum has been prescribed for the special meeting and moreover it has been mandated that such meeting shall not be postponed, once - 6 - notice for the same has already been issued. It is also evident that the Adhyaksha has not been given any power to reject the requisition which has been duly signed by not less than 1/5th of the total number of directly elected members of the Zila Parishad . The only duty of the Adhyaksha is that he shall within seven days from the date of receipt of such requisition convene a special meeting and upon his failure to do so, the duty is cast upon the District Magistrate to convene the meeting. It is not the position that any power has been vested in the Adhyaksha to decide one way or the other once a requisition duly signed by the required number has been presented under statutory provisions. The Act also does not confer any power on such members once they have signed a requisition to withdraw the same. Hence the so-called rejection by the Adhyaksha on 22.7.2008 has no sanction of law and it can only be treated as a failure by him to convene the special meeting as required by the Act. Once the same happens, it is for the District Magistrate to act with expedition and convene a meeting in the same manner as required by the Act. In this regard, this Court is not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the phrase “in the same manner” refers to the period of seven days. The manner of convening the meeting rather refers to that part of the sub-section which says that the meeting shall be held on a day not later than 15 days from the date of issue of the notice and therefore the District Magistrate has to see that the special meeting must be held on a day which is not beyond 15 days of the date of the notice. It is nowhere - 7 - mentioned in the Act that upon failure of the District Magistrate to act within seven days of the rejection by the Adhyaksha to convene a meeting, the requisition itself fails and cannot be acted upon. The requisition for convening a meeting to consider the no-confidence motion being a serious matter, it cannot be presumed to have lapsed in the absence of specific statutory provisions. On a consideration of the relevant provisions, this Court is of the view that no outer time limit has been prescribed by the Act for the District Magistrate to comply with the provisions of the statute for convening a special meeting although it must be held that the same should be done expeditiously once the Adhyaksha fails to act upon the requisition. In the present matter it appears that the District Magistrate was unable to understand the legal provisions and thus without any such requirement he called for an affidavit from the requisitionists and thereafter sought guidelines from the Department. No such steps were required to be taken by him and all that he had to see was that if the Adhyaksha had failed to act on the requisition within seven days then he had to forthwith convene the special meeting. So far as the contention regarding the reasons/charges being vague, this Court finds that while one or two of them might be vague the other charges are such which can easily be looked into and answered by the Adhyaksha during the course of the no-confidence motion and it is possible to have a reasonable discussion on the said issues in the course of the no-confidence motion. Hence the said contention is also rejected. - 8 - So far as the emphasis on the general meeting held on 23.10.2008 is concerned, that no one raised any grievance against the Chairman on the question of convening a special meeting for considering the no-confidence motion, the statute is not at all concerned with the fact as to whether the no-confidence motion will succeed or be defeated. That is a separate matter and even those among the requisitionists who ultimately come to the conclusion that the no-confidence motion against the Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha is not justified have every right at the time of voting to take a different stand than what they had taken at the time of requisition. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)