SHAMSHAD KHATUN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the soundness of the, order dated 7-1-2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 18104 of 2009 the appellant has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The factual matrix, as have been unfolded in the writ petition as well as in this appeal, are the appellant was elected as Pramukh of Fatuha Block under the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 2006 (for brevity 'the Act'). While she was functioning as the Pramukh, the members of the Panchayat Samiti sent a requisition on 5-12- 2009 for convening a special meeting for No Confidence Motion against her. On the basis of the said requisition, the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer issued notice for convening a special meeting on 12-12-2009. On the date fixed, a No Confidence Motion after being mooted was passed against the appellant. The appellant, as is evident, participated in the No Confidence Motion, which was passed against her and she became unseated. After the post fell vacant, the State Election Commission communicated to the District Magistrate-cum-Election Officer, Patna fixing 11-1-2010 for the date of election of new Pramukh.

(3.) Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid action, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending, inter alia, that the notice that was issued by the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti fixing the meeting on 12-12-2009 does not meet the requirement as postulated under Section 46(4) of the Act as the said provision provides that there must be a clear seven days notice for convening a special meeting for consideration of No Confidence Motion. Structuring the said stand it was urged that the date the notice was issued, that is, 5-12-2009, was to be included and the day of meeting, that is, 12-12-2009, has to be excluded and on such exclusion, the notice period-would stand reduced to six days which vitiates the mandatory provision as engrafted under Section 46(4) of the Act, and therefore, the( vote of No Confidence passed against her is null and void and, therefore, in the ultimate eventuate, the Notification issued by the state Election Commission to fill up the post treating the same to be vacant is unsustainable.