MEENA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions were referred to Division Bench for resolving contradictory views taken by learned Single Judges of this Court in different judgments on the issue whether Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which is somewhat similar to the same section of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 is mandatory or not so as to render the notice for a meeting to consider a motion of "No Confidence" void if it does not mention the charges/allegations for the proposed motion.

(2.) The essential facts are not in dispute and it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail for deciding the issue canvassed before us in course of hearing. It will suffice, to note that the writ petitioners have challenged the notice fixing the date of meeting for considering "No Confidence" motion against them on the ground that the concerned notice did not contain any reasons/charges which are required to be mentioned in the notice under sub-section (3)(b) of Section 44 of the Act. In C.W.J.C. 12611 of 2008 the petitioners were elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively of Nawadah Zila Parishad and in the other writ petition the sole petitioner is the elected Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Jokihat, District-Araria. In both the cases the notices were issued on the requisition of required number of members, not by the elected office bearers but by the concerned Government Officials i.e. the Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawadah-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Nawadah and the Block Development Officer, Jokihat-cum-Executive Officer, Jokihat Block Panchayat Samiti, respectively It is also not in dispute that the requisition submitted by the required number of elected members contained the allegations/charges for which a meeting to consider no confidence motion was sought. But the notice issued by the concerned officials did not communicate those allegations/charges.

(3.) Since the petitioners were served with requisitions to convene the meeting to consider "No Confidence" motion, they have not alleged any prejudice to them on account of alleged defect in the notice. The petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 12611 of 2008 did not participate in the meeting held for considering the "No Confidence" motion but the motions were admittedly carried out with the support of required majority of members.