IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.974 of 2009 PRADEEP KUMAR, son of Chhotan Mandal, resident of village Tahwalpur, P.O. Sadar Bhagalpur, P.S. Lodipur, District Bhagalpur … Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 3. Block Development Officer cum Secretary Panchayat Sammittee, Sabour, under the district of Bhagalpur 4. Smt. Krishna Devi, W/o Suresh Paswan, resident of village Farka, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur, Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti, Sabour 5. Ram Bilash Mandal, son of Dwarak Mandal, resident of village Rajandhipur, P.S, Sabour, District Bhagalpur 6. Kapildeo Mandal, son of Mohan Mandal, resident of village Shankarpur, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur 7. Uchit Narayan Mandal, son of Lakhan Mandal, resident of village Lailakh, P.s. Sabour, District Bhagalpur 8. Krishna Kumar Paswan, son of Munsi Ram, resident of village Sabour, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur 9. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, son of Agauri Prasad Singh, resident of village Khankita, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur 10. Lalima Devi, wife of Shailendra Mandal, resident of village Baijalpur, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur 11. Kumari Punam, wife of Garib Das, resident of village Meenachak, P.S. Zero Mile, District Bhagalpur 12. Rani Devi, wife of Randhir Paswan, resident of village Pargarhi, P.s. Sabour, District Bhagalpur 13. Ram Kumar Mandal, son of Arjun Mandal, resident of village Mamlakha, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur 14. Fakru Alam, son of Abdul Majid, resident of village Lodipur, P.s. Lodipur, District Bhagalpur 15. Doman Thakur, son of late Lalji Thakur, resident of village Sarshi, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur 16. Bibi Nisha Bano, wife of Heban resident of village Fatehpur, P.S. Zero Mile, District Bhagalpur 17. Vidya Devi, wife of Vijay Yadav, resident of village Mirjapur, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur 18. Farhane Khatoon, wife of Md. Sattar resident of village Rajpur, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur … Respondents-Respondents ----------- 2 3. 8.2.2010 I.A.No. 4724/2009 Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned in this application, the delay of 3 days in filing this appeal, L.P.A.No. 974/2009, is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 4724/2009 is accordingly allowed. L.P.A. No. 974/2009 Having condoned the delay in filing of the appeal we with the consent of the counsel for both the parties have heard the appeal on merits with a view to dispose it of at the admission stage itself. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.3.2009 in C.W.J.C.No. 1948/2009 whereby and whereunder the challenge of the appellant- writ petitioner to a No Confidence Motion carried out against him has been rejected. Mr. S.B.K.Manglam, learned counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner, had assailed the order of the learned Single Judge only on the ground that the finding arrived as with regard to validity of the said resolution of No Confidence Motion carried out against 3 the appellant- writ petitioner was wrongly decided, inasmsuch as the grounds on which the same was considered and passed were not at all referable to any allegation/ misconduct on the part of the appellant- writ petitioner who was only holding the post of Up-pramukh. Expanding his submission Mr. Manglam had made a valiant effort to distinguish between the power and function of Pramukh vis-a-vis Up-pramukh and it was sought to be canvassed by him that the requisition as also notice for convening the special meeting to consider a No Confidence Motion against the appellant- writ petitioner had not contained even a single ground which was within the power and jurisdiction of Up-pramukh, a post held by the appellant- writ petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the learned Single Judge has addressed himself on all the questions raised before him including the aforesaid solitary question, which was pressed before us and we would find no reason to arrive at a different conclusion to the one which was recorded by him while dismissing the writ application. It is well settled that there can be no judicial review on the merits of No Confidence Motion 4 and it would be also not open to the appellant- writ petitioner to assail the result of No Confidence Motion on the ground of merit of the allegations for which special meeting was convened. We, however, in order to satisfy ourselves had gone into four of the allegations mentioned in the requisition submitted by six of the members of the Panchayat Samiti, as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application. From the said document, it would be clear that the following four allegations were made against the appellant- writ petitioner holding the post of Up-pramukh, namely, ^^vfo'okl izdV djus dk eq[; dkj.k& 1- f'k{kk lfefr ds xBu] e/;ku Hkkstu Apkoy jkf'kA f'k{kk Lrj ds uhps fxjkus bR;kfn esa vfu;ferrk ds lanHkZ esaA 2- lkekftd U;; dfeVh ds vUrxZr voS/k <ax ls vkaxuokM+h ds lsfodk lgkf;dk ds p;u esa rFkk Hkkstu lkexzh o jkf'k;ksa dk caVj okV esa ysus ds lanHkZ esaA 3- iapk;r lfefr ds dk;kZy; esa nyxr o vlkekftd rRoksa ds yksxks dk tekoM+k yxokus bR;kfn ds lanHkZ esaA 4- mi izeq[k ds funs'kkuqlkj izeq[k dk;kZy; dk [kqyuk ,oa cUn djkukA izeq[k jgrs [kqn dks mi izeq[k izeq[k cSBuk ftlds pyrs fodkl dk;ksZa ds lkFk f'k{kk txr esa dkQh Hkz"Vkpkjh dk foxqy ct jgs gSA** It would thus become clear that the allegations, which were made against the appellant- writ 5 petitioner, including one that he in presence of the Pramukh had usurped the powers of Pramukh by dictating office of Pramukh to work under his command were directly referable to the appellant- writ petitioner in capacity of Up-Pramukh. More over, it also emerges from Annexure 2 that it was the appellant- writ petitioner in capacity of Up-pramukh, who was the Chairman of the Education Committee of Panchayat Samiti and if there were allegations with regard to mal-functioning of such Education Committee and the Schemes being not carried to the satisfaction of the members of the Panchayat Samiti, it cannot be said that the allegations, on which the meeting was convened for considering motion of No Confidence had no nexus or relevance to the power and function of the post of Up-pramukh. We, therefore, hold that both the requisition as also notice for holding the special meeting for considering No Confidence Motion against the appellant- writ petitioner had contained the allegations referable to his post of Up-Pramukh. In fact it would be too late in the day for the appellant- writ petitioner to take a plea of this nature because even the notice for No Confidence 6 Motion circulated had contained the aforementioned grounds and yet the appellant- writ petitioner had taken his chance by participating in the meeting and only when Motion of No Confidence was carried out against him and he was voted out of the office that he has come out to take all these pleas which has been well considered by the learned Single Judge and rejected on all scores. We would also concur with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge on this aspect wherein it has been held that: “ As regards the discussion of charges in the meeting, normally this Court would not like to go into the details of the proceedings of the Panchayat Samiti in such matter which are in-house proceedings and it is for the members of the Panchayat Samiti to consider or not to consider and hold detailed discussion on the various charges and the manner in which the minutes are recorded is not for this Court to consider. It is evident that the petitioner was not prevented from giving his explanation to each of the charges and thus the requirement of section 44(3)(vii) was duly complied and no grievance can be made by the petitioner on that count.” The aforementioned findings in fact would 7 leave nothing for us to reconsider the matter especially when learned counsel for the appellant had confined his submissions only on merits of the allegation forming the basis of discussion and ultimate decision carrying out the Motion of No Confidence against the appellant- writ petitioner. A person elected to office by majority of votes in a democratic process cannot be allowed to complain on the merits of No Confidence Motion and the writ court will be absolutely loath in going beyond the decision making process. We, however, find no such error in carrying out the Motion of No Confidence against the appellant- writ petitioner. That being so, this appeal must be and is hereby dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/