CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10605 OF 2008 ---------- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ------------- Radhe Raman, S/O Shri Suryadeo Paswan, resident of Village- Muradpur, P.O. Mobarakpur, P.S. Janipur, Block, Phoolwari Sahrif, District- Patna. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Patna. 4. The Block Development Officer, Phoolwari Sharif, District- Patna. 5. Mr. Kamlesh Kant Choudhary 6. Mrs. Rita Devi 7. Mrs. Sunita Devi 8. Mrs. Sangeeta Bharati 9. Mrs. Sadhna Devi 10. Mrs.Poonam Kumari. 11. Mrs. Basanti Devi. 12. Mrs. Indu Devi 13. Smt. Ishrat Khatoon. 14. Shri Awadhesh Prasad. 15. Shri Anil Sharmna. 16. Shri Dhananjay Kumar 17. Shri Naresh Rajak. 18. Shri Dharmendra Kumar. 19. Shri Dhiraj Kumar. 20. Shri Ram Sagar Paswan. 21. Smt. Sangeeta Devi. 22. Shri Rajiv Ranjan. 23.Shri Ajit Kumar., all are Members of Panchayat Samiti, Phoolwari Sahrif, Block- Phoolwari Sahrif, District- Patna ---- Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sri Prakash Srivastava For the State : Mr. Md. Fazal Rahman, Govt. Pleader no.6. For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Verma ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE K. MANDAL 2 S.K. Katriar, & Kishore K.Mandal, JJ. This writ petition is directed against the notice bearing no. 07 (M), dated 16.7.2008, (Annexure-6), issued under the signature of respondent no.4 (The Block Development Officer, Phoolwari Sahrif, District-Patna), whereby notice has been issued to the members of the Panchayat Samiti, Phoolwari Sharif, that a meeting of the Panchayat has been convened on 24.7.2008 to consider no-confidence motion against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat for misuse of powers, gross involvement in corruption, etc. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. A Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 3.2.2010, passed in C.W. J.C. No. 12611 of 2008 (Meema Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and others),has held as follows: “17. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, the impugned notices must be held to be void because they admittedly do not contain any reasons/charges which is required to be mentioned in the notice as per law noticed above. Hence, the notices and the consequent meetings are found to be against law. As a result, the notices shall stand quashed. Any decision taken in the meeting held on the basis of 3 impugned notices shall also stand quashed. The writ petitions accordingly stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” It appears from a perusal of the impugned notice that the same does state the reason(s)/charge(s) against the Pramukh and Up- Pramukh for which notice for no-confidence motion has been issued and satisfies the requirement of law enunciated in the judgment of the Division Bench. It further appears that, as per the requisition, the meeting did take place on 24.7.2008, on which date no-confidence motion was passed against the concerned persons as a result of which they ceased to hold office. It is of equal importance that elections have already taken place, new office- bearers have been elected, and they occupy the offices. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The impugned notice dated 16.7.2008 is hereby upheld. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. High Court Patna, Dated 3rd March, 2010, Vinay/ N.A.F.R. ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) 4