CHEDI PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of a resolution dated the 10th October, 1979, adopted at an emergent meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Sambhuganj. By this resolution, a vote of no-confidence was passed against the oetitioner who had earlier on the 12th March, 1979, been elected as the Pramukh of the said Sambhuganj Panchayat Samiti. The ground on which the petitioner challenges the validity of the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti is that the notice of the motion was given on 5th September, 1979, which was within six months from the date of assumption of the office of Pramukh by the petitioner, and therefore, the whole proceeding was invalid in law.

(2.) In order to appreciate the argument, I would refer to the relevant provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 6 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 32 of the Act deals with the motion of non-confidence in Pramukh or. Up-Pramukh. Sub-section (1) of Section 32 provides that "a motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti may be made by a notice signed by not less than one-third of the total number of the members of the Panchayat Samiti" Sub-section (2) of Section 32 lays down the procedure for dealing with the motion, and provides that "if the motion is carried with the support of not less than two thirds of the members of the Panchayat Samiti present and voting the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh, as the case may be, shall cease to hold the office as such and shall be deemed to have vacated the same on and from the date on which the fact of the motion having been carried is affixed on the notice board of the office of the Panchayat Samiti." Under this procedure, no doubt, the motion of no-confidence was carried in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on the 10th October, 1979: Sub-section (4) of Section 32 prescribed a limitation for making such a notice and it lays down that "no notice of a motion under this section shall be made within six months of assumption of office by a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh as the case may be."

(3.) The facts are not very much disputed in this case, and no counter-affidavit has been filed. But in a petition for vacating the stay order filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 7 and 9 to 15, namely, Up-Pramukh and some of the members of the Panchayat Samiti in question, it has been stated that the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was moved on the 15th September, 1979 and not on the 5th September, 1979 as stated by the petitioner. On this allegation, the copy of the notice which was made annexure 2 to the writ application by the petitioner was challenged as a forged, fabricated and manufactured document for the purpose of this case. At the time of hearing of this application, learned counsel for the petitioner produced before me the original notice in question (a copy whereof is Aanexure 2) which had been served on the petitioner. I passed on the said notice to Mr. Brahmanand Singh, standing counsel No. 1 for his perusal and to point out any evidence of fabrication or concoction in this notice as alleged by some of the respondents as aforesaid. Learned standing counsel however fairly conceded, and rightly, that he was not in a position to point out any sign of interpolation or manipulation in the said notice. He however, argued that in as much as the motion of no-confidence was carried on the 10th October, 1979, that is beyond the period of six months, the technical violation of the notice having been made within the period of six months was not very material and should be ignored.