IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12926 of 2008 DHANANJAY KUMAR SUMAN, SON OF UMA SHANKAR PRASAD, RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE- ONAMA, POLICE STATION- SHEIKHOPUR SARAI, DISTRICT- SHEIKHOPUR ………………. PETITIONER Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary Panchayati Raj, Patna. 2. The Director, Panchayat Raj, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura 4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Sheikhpura. 5. The Sub-Divisional officer, Sheikhpura 6. The Block Development officer-cum-Execitive Officer, Sheikhopur Sarai District- Sheikhpura. 7. Ravindra Singh S/0 Lakhan Singh, residence of Village- Amari, P. S. Sheikhpura Sarai, Dist- Sheikhpura. 8. Sanjeeda Khatoon wife of Md. Saleir Ali, residence of village- Paharia, P.S. Sheikhopur Sarai, Dist- Sheikhpura. 9. Loram Devi wife of Vijay Paswan, residence of village- Mozimpur, P.S. Sheikhopur Sarai, Dist- Sheikhpura. 10. Sudha Bharti wife of Ghanshyam Singh, residence of Village- Kabirpur, P.S. Sheikhopur Sarai, Dist- Sheikhpura. 11. Meena Devi wife of Saryug Prasad, residence of village – Beerpur, P.S. Barbigha, Dist- Sheikhpura. 12. Chandan Kumar s/0 Ram Charitar Singh, residence of Village- Cuuema P.S. Sheikhopur Sarai, Dist- Sheikhpura. 13. Saro Devi wife of Dani Rajak, residence of village- Neemi, P.S. Sheikhopur Sarai, Dist- Sheikhpura. 14. Akshya Kumar s/0o Krishnandan Singh, residence of village- Sheikhopur P.S. Sheikhopur Sarai, Dist- Sheikhpura. ……… RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S. A. Narain, Senior Adv. Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 8, 9, and 10: Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Adv. Mr. Neeraj Singh, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 7 and 13 : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 11 and 14 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv. -------------- 4. 16.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed the writ application with a prayer for quashing the notice dated 16.8.2008 (Annexure-6) issued by the - 2 - Executive Officer-Cum-Block Development Officer, Sheikhopur Sarai by which a special meeting for considering the no-confidence motion against the petitioner as Pramukh of the said Panchayat Samiti has been convened. During the pendency of the writ application, however, the said meeting was convened and the petitioner was removed from his post. The no-confidence motion has been successfully carried against him by six votes to three. Accordingly, the prayer was permitted to be amended to challenge the resolution dated 28.8.2008 by which the petitioner was removed from his office through the no-confidence motion. The short facts relevant for consideration of the present matter are that a requisition was submitted by six members of the Panchayat Samiti for convening a special meeting for considering a no-confidence motion against the petitioner Pramukh. The Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti by his letter dated 25.7.2008 brought the matter to the notice of the petitioner informing him that as per Section 44(3)(i) of the Act, he shall convene the meeting within 15 days. However, the same not having been done, on the basis of the date fixed by the Up-Pramukh, the Executive Officer issued a notice dated 9.8.2008 convening the special meeting on 14.8.2008. The petitioner filed a representation before the Collector under Section 157 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 that no clear seven days notice has been given and no reasons/charges have been indicated in the same. On a consideration of the matter, the Collector by his letter dated 13.8.2008 (Annexure-5) cancelled the notice dated 9.8.2008 and - 3 - directed the Executive Officer, Sheikhopur Sarai Panchayat Samiti to convene a fresh meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, on the request of six members, the Up-Pramukh again directed the Executive Officer to fix the date of meeting on 28.8.2008 and accordingly the notice dated 16.8.2008 (Annexure- 6) was issued by the Executive Officer which has been challenged by the petitioner. Subsequently on his removal in the said special meeting through the no-confidence motion, the petitioner has challenged the resolution passed in the said meeting also by which he has been removed. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises two points in support of his case. Firstly, it is submitted that after the earlier notice dated 9.8.2008 had been cancelled by the Collector, it is stated in the notice dated 16.8.2008 itself that the six members again approached the Up-Pramukh who fixed the date. It is urged that the same being a fresh requisition it ought to have been presented to the petitioner as the Pramukh in terms of Section 44 (3)(i) of the Act and the same not having been done, it being contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act, the notice dated 16.8.2008 is fit to be set aside. It is next argued by learned counsel that all the four reasons/charges mentioned in the notice dated 16.8.2008 are vague, general and non-specific and in the said circumstances there is violation of the provisions of Section 44(3)(v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and on the said ground also the said notice ought to be quashed and the no-confidence motion passed pursuant to the said notice is also fit to be quashed. It is submitted by learned counsel that - 4 - the first reason/charge mentioned in the notice is that funds with respect to developments have been distributed in a whimsical manner. Learned counsel states that under Section 51 of the Act there is a Finance, Audit and Planning Committee which shall perform functions relating to finance, audit, budget and planning and thus no such charge is maintainable against the petitioner. It is further submitted that no specific details have been given as to which amount was spent in which development schemes showing whimsicality of the petitioner in the matter. It is stated that the second charge is merely a general allegation of bad behavior and insulting approach by the petitioner with the members of the Panchayat Samiti without giving any specific instances With respect to the reason/charge no. 3 it is stated that it is vague and general and does not mention specific instances as to which members had protested against non- giving of money for development works and had been threatened with being falsely implicated by the petitioner. On the same ground learned counsel assails the reason/charge no. 4 as no specific instances have been given as to the commission having been demanded from particular members of the Panchayat Samiti for distributing funds in his ward. It is thus submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner was not in a position to meet the charges in the course of the discussion of the no- confidence motion, the same being vague and general in nature and - 5 - for the said reason the decision arrived at during the special meeting is illegal and void. In support of the aforesaid proposition learned counsel relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalan Singh and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others: 2002 (3) PLJR 201 in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of which it has been held as follows:- “3. The Court is examining the root cause on which a motion of no confidence was carried. The root cause was the proposal brought on which the motion of no confidence was considered. Time and again, the Court has expressed that a motion of no confidence must have specific allegations against an incumbent, Pramukh or a Mukhiya, so that a person who faces a motion of no confidence may know what he is up against. Making vague allegations without specifying the nature of misdemeanour renders the proposal itself a questionable exercise resting on arbitrariness. Such a motion is invalid and illegal. 4. The Court has examined the proposal which was considered at the meeting on a motion of no confidence. Counsel has been unable to specify on what exactly the Pramukh was supposed to answer when the misdemeanours or allegations against him have not been spelled out with specific instances. If this becomes a general practice, it will play up havoc with the Panchayats recently rendered functional in Bihar.” Learned counsels for the respondents on the other hand - 6 - submit that so far as the notice dated 16.8.2008 is concerned, the date for the same had been fixed by the Up-Pramukh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that there is no second requisition as sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner. All that has happened is that earlier on the failure of the petitioner to fix the date of the meeting, on the request of the requisite number of members, the Up-Pramukh had fixed the date of the meeting on 14.8.2008 which had been set aside by the D.M. That being so, again on the request of the members the Up-Pramukh had fixed the date i.e., 28.8.2008 with a direction to the Executive Officer to issue the notice so that clear 7 days notice be given to the petitioner and all the other members in the matter. Learned counsels refer to the provisions of Section 44 (3) (i) of the Act which provides that on the failure of the Pramukh to fix a date within 15 days of the receipt of the requisition, the Up-Pramukh or 1/3rd of the directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti may themselves fix a date of the meeting for considering the no-confidence motion and direct the Executive Officer to issue notice in this regard. It is thus submitted that the District Magistrate acting under Section 157 of the Act had merely cancelled the earlier notice dated 9.8.2008 leaving it open to the Executive Officer to fix a fresh date in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The same having been done it is not open to the petitioner to challenge it on the ground that he was not given an opportunity to fix the date. It is further submitted by learned counsels for the respondents that four charges were clearly mentioned in the notice - 7 - dated 16.8.2008 as required by Section 44 (3) (v) of the Act. Learned counsels submit that the said charges are not vague and non-specific and it was open to the petitioner to answer the same. It is further contended that the petitioner had on the basis of the said charges participated in the discussion of the no-confidence motion and had failed to convince the members of the Panchayat Samiti and thereby lost the contest during the no-confidence motion. It is contended that no-confidence motion having been approved by the majority and the democratic process having once been over it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same since no judicial review is permissible in the matter. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that so far as the first submission regarding the fresh date being fixed by the Up-Pramukh is concerned, there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that the District Magistrate by his order dated 13.8.2008 had merely cancelled the notice dated 9.8.2008 which had evidently not provided for seven clear days notice as required by Section 44(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and further did not contain any reasons/charges on the basis of which the no- confidence motion was to be considered. The cancellation of the notice dated 9.8.2008 did not have the effect of undoing the requisition made by more than 1/3rd directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti. All that was required to be done thereafter was to issue a notice fixing a fresh date providing for seven clear days notice - 8 - to the Pramukh and other members of the Panchayat Samiti and also to state the reasons/charges on the basis of which the no-confidence motion was to be considered. The admitted position is that earlier also on the failure of the petitioner to act within the statutory period provided by Section 44(3)(i) action had been taken by the Up- Pramukh for fixing the date and, therefore, after the earlier notice had been cancelled by the Collector exercising power under Section 157 it was open to the Up-Pramukh whether on the basis of or even without any further request by 1/3rd of the members to fix a fresh date complying with the provisions of the Act; the same having been done it is not open to challenge by the petitioner. So far as the other submission regarding the charges being vague are concerned, this Court is of the view that charge no. 2 is definitely vague, general and non-specific and it does not mention any specific instances with respect to any particular member or members with whom the petitioner had misbehaved or who had been insulted by the petitioner on any particular date. So far as charges/reasons nos. 3 and 4 mentioned in the notice dated 16.8.2008 are concerned, individually they do appear to be vague and general but considered along with the charge/reason No. 1 it is evident that the main thrust of the reasons/charges mentioned in the no-confidence motion is the grievance of the members of the Panchayat Samiti that the petitioner as the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti was allocating funds to the different wards of the Panchayat Samiti in a whimsical and capricious manner and sufficient funds were not being allotted in the wards of the - 9 - members of the Panchayat Samiti opposed to him. This Court does not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because there is a provision for Finance, Audit and Planning Committee in the Act the Pramukh himself has no power to make the allotment. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the mere existence of such Committee negates the power of the petitioner to make allotment of development funds to the various wards, etc. The said charges cannot be considered as vague and non-specific for the reason that it was open to the petitioner to show on the basis of the records available with him that he had in a fair and just manner distributed the development funds to the various wards within the Panchayat Samiti and there has been no whimsical and capricious allocation of the funds. In any case the charges/reasons with respect to no- confidence motion as provided under Section 44(3)(v) of the Act cannot be put on the same footing as charges in a departmental proceeding on the basis of which findings have to be recorded by the disciplinary authority. Under the Panchayat Raj Act, the charges/reasons are only for the purpose of discussing the motion of no-confidence against the Pramukh and there is no requirement of the same to be proved before such a motion can be passed. It is for the members of the Panchayat Samiti to consider the charges and thereafter vote on the motion as they deem fit. The only requirement is that the charges must be clear and discussion can be made with - 10 - respect to the same. This Court is of the view that the charge no. 1 read with charge nos. 3 and 4 clearly express the grievance of the members of the Panchayat Samiti regarding the non-allocation of funds in a fair and reasonable manner by the petitioner and it was well within the capability of the petitioner to refute them on the basis of the documents available with him. Hence, the second contention of the petitioner that the charges were vague, non-specific and general also must fail in view of the aforesaid discussion. Thus, there is no merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. As a consequence of such dismissal, the earlier interim order dated 4.9.2008 also stands vacated. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)