IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7971 of 2010 Mukesh Kumar Sharma, son of Sri Surendra Sharma, resident of village Machhiyahi, P.S. Jalalpur, District Saran at Chapra, presently Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Maker, District Saran at Chapra………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, District Saran at Chapra 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chapra Sadar, District Saran at Chapra 6. The Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Maker, District Saran at Chapra 7. Baijanti Devi wife of Sharwan Rai, presently Up-Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Maker, District Saran at Chapra. 8. Chhathu Manjhi, son of not known to the petitioner 9. Sarita Devi wife of not known to the petitioner 10. Surendra Prasad Sinha, son of not known to the petitioner 11. Durgawati Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner 12. Sarita Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner 13. Rajendra Mahto, son of not known to the petitioner 14. Asha Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner 15. Kamlesh Prasad Singh, son of not known to the petitioner 16. Fuljhari Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner 17. Rajendra Sah, son of not known to the petitioner Respondent nos.8 to 17 are the elected members of the Block Panchayat Samiti, Maker through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Maker, P.O. and P.S. Maker, District Saran at Chapra………………………Respondents. For the petitioner : M/s V.K.Singh and Pankaj Kr.Singh No.I, Advocates. For the State and respondent no.6 : Mr. Sanjay Kr.Sanju, AC to GA-10 2 ----------- 06/ 29.07.2010 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure-7) issued by the Block Development Officer (respondent no.6) informing the members of Maker Block Panchayat Samiti (Saran) that a special meeting of Panchayat Samiti had been convened on 07.05.2010 to consider No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. 2. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that petitioner was the Pramukh of the aforesaid Panchayat Samiti, constituted in 2006, which consisted 12 elected members, out of whom 8 members issued requisition dated 04.11.2009 (Annexure- 2) and sent it to the petitioner, who was the Pramukh, for issuing notice to call No Confidence Motion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said requisition was not sent to him and all of a sudden notice dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure-7) was issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti informing the petitioner that a meeting of No Confidence Motion was fixed on 07.05.2010 at 11.30 A.M. 3. It is further stated that the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 05.05.2010 against the aforesaid notice but during the pendency of this writ petition, the said meeting was held on 07.05.2010 and No Confidence Motion was passed against him by 10 out of 12 members of the Panchayat Samiti. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.A. No.4767 of 2010 challenging No Confidence 3 Motion dated 07.05.2010 (Annexure-1 to the interlocutory application) as an additional relief. When the said matter was considered by a Bench of this court on 13.05.2010 it was directed that till further orders of this court, no confidence motion resolution will not be given effect to. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the entire procedure stating that No Confidence Motion was not legal and proper as the requisition for the same was violative of the provision of section 44 (3) (i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity), which provided that requisition must be sent to the Pramukh whereas in the instant case requisition dated 04.11.2009 (Annexure-2), although addressed to the Pramukh was not presented to him, rather it was sent to the Executive Officer (respondent no.6) who issued notice on 27.04.2010 (Annexure-7) to the petitioner without giving the details of the charges and allegations levelled against the petitioner which was also violative of the provision of section 44 (3) (v) of the Act. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents vehemently oppose the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the requisition was sent to the petitioner but he did not take any step and hence the requisitionists had no option but to ask the Executive Officer for issuance of notice calling a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti for special purposes of No Confidence Motion which is thus legal and proper 4 and according to which the resolution of No Confidence Motion had been passed in the meeting held on 07.05.2010 (Annexure-1 to the interlocutory application) by 10 out of 12 members in which the petitioner did not participate. 6. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that there is no material to show that requisition dated 04.11.2009 (Annexure-2) was served upon the Pramukh, namely the petitioner. Furthermore, the notice issued by the Executive Officer (respondent no.6) to the petitioner dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure-7) clearly shows that the details of charges and allegations levelled by the members against the petitioner had not been enumerated therein. Due to the said facts the petitioner could not appear in the said meeting of the Panchayat Samiti for No Confidence Motion which was vitiated due to absence of knowledge as well as violation of specific provisions of law mentioned above. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the notice issued by the Executive Officer dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure-7) for holding a meeting of No Confidence Motion as well as the entire procedure of No Confidence Motion including its resolution dated 07.05.2010 (Annexure-1 to the interlocutory application) are against the specific provisions of law and are accordingly quashed. 8. However, now the Pramukh, namely the petitioner has got the requisition issued by 8 out of 12 members of the Panchayat Samiti and he is fully aware of the allegations and 5 charges levelled by them against him. Hence, the Executive Officer of Maker Block Panchayat Samiti-cum Block Development Officer (respondent no.6) is directed to issue a fresh notice to all the members of the Panchayat Samiti including the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. The said notice must contain the charges and allegations levelled against the petitioner and must also give seven days clear time for holding meeting of members of the said Panchayat Samiti for considering the No Confidence Motion as per the Requisition dated 04.11.2009 (Annexure-2). With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )