KAMLESH ROY Vs. RUDRA NARAIN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing a resolution of no-confidence dated 7th Oct., 1979, removing the petitioner from the office of Pramukh of Patepur Panchayat Samiti, a copy of which has been filed as Annex. 4.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that on 10-3-79 he was elected Pramukh of Patepur Panchayat Samiti, hereinafter referred to as "Samiti", by defeating respondent No. 4, Krishna Nandan Prasad Singh, and took oath of office on 11-3-79 but later it was found that the oath of office administered to the petitioner was not in accordance with Section 71 of Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and, therefore, the petitioner had again taken oath on 11-6-79, as required under Section 71. The petitioner has averred that respondent No. 1, Rudra Narain Rai, District Development Officer, Hajipur who happens to be the samdhi of respondent No. 4, did not take the defeat of his samdhi sportingly and soon after the election of the petitioner started pressurising respondent No. 2, Paras Nath Choudhary, Prakhand Vikas Padadhikari, Patepur, to see that a vote of no-confidence was passed against the petitioner so that he may be removed from the office of Pramukh. The petitioner has also alleged that respondent No. 2 was not favourably disposed towards the petitioner inasmuch as at the instance of the petitioner an anti-corruption committee has been formed by the District Magistrate, Vaishali, of which the petitioner is a member, and the said committee is enquiring into several allegations of corruption against respondent No. 2 and some Mukhiyas.

(3.) The petitioner has further alleged that on 27-9-79 respondent No. 4 in league with respondents 1 and 2 sponsored a no-confidence motion which was placed before the petitioner on 28-9-79 (Annexure 1). As there were executive holidays from 28th September to 4th Oct., 1979, and 5th and 6th Oct., 1979 were declared as special holidays and 7th Oct., 1979, being a Sunday, the petitioner directed the no-confidence motion to be placed for orders on 8th Oct., 1979 (Annex. 2) as no meeting could be held on a holiday. But surprisingly enough on 4-10-79 respondent No. 2 issued a notice fixing 7-10-79 as the date of the said meeting of the Samiti to discuss the no-confidence motion signed by 18 persons of the Samiti (Annexure 3). The petitioner was not given any information about the said meeting and the said meeting should not have been held on 7th Oct., 1979, which was a Sunday and a holiday according to Rule 3 of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules". The petitioner has also alleged that the notice of the said meeting was not served on six members of the Samiti besides the petitioner, namely, Paltan Ram, M.L.A., Sushil Prasad Yadav, Tej Narain Singh, Ganga Choudhary, Srimati Jyoti Devi and Basist Rai. In spite of the aforesaid lacuna the meeting was held on 7-10-79 in which the motion of no-confidence was passed. The petitioner has averred that ten members of the Samiti, mentioned in para 13 of the petition, had not taken oath of office including respondent No. 4. The petitioner has come to know that respondent No. 3, Up-Pramukh, administered oath to some members of the samiti on 7th Oct., 1979, itself, which the petitioner characterised as illegal inasmuch as the meeting was held under Rule 5 (2) of the Rules for considering the no-confidence motion and not for administering oaths of office. On account of violation of the aforesaid mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules, the petitioner has prayed for declaring the impugned resolution as invalid. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 as well as on behalf of respondent No. 4 to which the petitioner has filed replies. They will be referred to in so far as they are relevant.