RAMESH RAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the member of Samastipur Zila Parishad. He has come to this Court with an allegation that as contemplated by Section 70 sub section 4 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 the requisite number of members filed a requisition before the Chairman of the Zila Parishad for convening a special meeting to consider no confidence against her. The Chairman refused to act. The petitioner then moved the District Magistrate, as envisaged under the same very provision. The District Magistrate also refused to act. Hence he has come to this Court.

(2.) Fortunately, respondent no.5, the Chairman/Adhyaksh of Zila Parishad, Samastipur has appeared through Vakalatnama. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that she having received the requisition found that some of the members later denied singing the requisition. She has prepared affidavits of those persons and as such she was not required in law to call a special meeting.

(3.) So far as State is concerned, there is no instruction in the matter as yet but learned counsel for respondent no.5 clearly admits that it is because of this very reason even the District Magistrate is not acting. I am afraid. Both the Chairman/ Adhyaksh and the District Magistrate are under a wrong notion of law. A reference to Section 70 of sub section 4 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act would show that upon requisition a special meeting has to be called for. Subsequent denial of people having signed the requisition would be no consequence because instead of calling meeting and to decide the vote of confidence, if some of the members are subsequently won over then without facing House, the Chairman would continue. If the Chairman is sanguine that she has supported the majority of the House or in other words it is only a minority which is against her then she has to convene a special meeting and face the House that is the democratic provisions. The District Magistrate cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the people requisitioning a meeting in the mandatory forum. He has no discretion in the matter. He has legal obligation and duty under the Act to call a meeting within seven days. He cannot shirk his responsibility because that would expose him allegation of being participant instead of independent and not involved in any local politics. I am sure that the District Magistrate would not like to face such allegation. In such a situation I am left with no option but to direct respondent no.5 to convene a special meeting to consider no confidence against her, the date of which shall not be made later than fifteen days from today. As is envisaged sub section 4 of Section 70 of the Bihar Raj Panchayat Act let democracy prevail in a democratic manner.