DHARMENDRA RAI SON OF SRI RAMJI RAI AND ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA SON OF SRI SHEO JANAM SHARMA, MEMBER, TARAIYAN BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two writ applications what in question effectively is the removal of the Pramukh of Taraiyan Block Panchayat Samiti in the district of Saran. The petitioner, in the first writ application, is the Pramukh himself and the petitioner in the second writ petition is one of the members of the Panchayat Samiti. All parties have appeared and with their consent, as pleadings are complete, the writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage itself.

(2.) There are 18 elected members in the Panchayat Samiti. Out of the 18, 9 of the elected members filed a requisition before the Pramukh on 04.07.2008 expressing no confidence against him and requesting him to call for a meeting to discuss the said motion against him. The only reason for calling such a meeting was that the Pramukh is not functioning in accordance with law and is carrying out the functions at his will. The requisition is Annexure-1. Pursuant to the aforesaid requisition, on the directions of the Pramukh, the Block Development Officer, Taraiyan, who is the Executive Officer, notified the date of meeting for consideration of no confidence on 18.07.2008. On 17.07.2008, the petitioner of the first writ application that is the Pramukh against whom no confidence motion was to be taken up on 18.07.2008, resigned from the post of Pramukh. Nevertheless the meeting was held on 18.07.2008. Pramukh, the writ petitioner in the first writ petition, did not participate. The reason whereof would be indicated later. In the meeting, it was discussed that the Pramukh had resigned but as he had seven days' time to withdraw his resignation, the Panchayat did not consider this aspect as material and carried the motion through with 12 votes for the no confidence motion and 5 votes against it. It is this result that is being challenged.

(3.) Mr S.B.K. Mangalam, learned Counsel in support of the writ application has raised a single issue that the notice convening meeting for consideration of no confidence motion containing no charges was against Section 44(3)(v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and, as such, the meeting cannot be held to be valid. Having considered the matter, in my view in the peculiar facts of the present case, the writ petitions lack merit and are fit to be dismissed.