MUKESH KUMAR S/O VISHWANATH PRASAD RAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the Collector issued under Memo No. 34 dated 25.01.2010 whereby in purported exercise of power under Section 157 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, he has declared that the special meeting, called on 23.01.2010 to consider the no confidence motion against the Pramukh of Patepur Panchayat Samiti, wrongly passed the resolution of no confidence against the Pramukh. He has pointed out that the total elected members of the Panchayat Samiti is 46 and in the meeting, only 23 members voted in support of the no confidence motion which was not majority of the elected members. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that 45 members participated and, as such, 23 was majority. I am afraid I am unable to sustain the submission. Firstly, in terms of Section 157 of the Act, Collector has been vested with special powers in regard to special meetings which are convened for consideration of no confidence motion and he can correct if there is something wrong therein. Thus, Collector has the jurisdiction in the matter. Secondly, in terms of Section 44(3)(i) of the Panchayat Raj Act 2006, it clearly provides that it is the majority of the total elected members who can remove the Pramukh or Up Pramukh and not majority of members present and voting. It is because of this that the provision provides that no quorum is necessary because by implication, majority of the elected members have to vote in favour of no confidence. Here, there were 46 elected members and only 23 voted. Therefore, they were not majority. The House was divided equally. The District Magistrate, in that view of the matter, was not wrong in holding that Pramukh has not lost the confidence of the House.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court since. I am afraid that judgment was rendered when the Panchayat Raj Act 2006 had yet to come and is in relation to old provisions which were materially different. The case has no application.

(3.) The writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly.