HARE RAM ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case was Pramukh of Biroul Panchayat Samity in the district of Darbhanga. He seeks to challenge the resolution, dated 24.4.2002 (Annexure -18) by which the Panchayat Samity, in its meeting held on that date, adopted, by majority, the vote of no confidence against him, leading to his removal from the office of Pramukh.

(2.) THE facts of the case are brief and simple. The petitioner was elected as Pramukh of the Panchyat Samity in June, 2001. On 11.4.2002, 26 members of the Panchayat Samity addressed a written requisition (Annexure -6) to the District Magistrate, Darbhanga for holding a special meeting of the Samiti to consider the vote of no confidence against the Pramukh on charges that were stated in the requisition. At the bottom of the requisition letter it was indicated that its copies were sent to the Subdivisional Officer, Beroul, the Dy. Development Commissioner, Darbhanga, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Darbhanga, the Block Development Officer, Biroul and also to the petitioner, the Pramukh of the Samity. A copy of the requisition letter was forwarded to the petitioner by the Block Development Officer, Biraul along with his letter, dated 13.4.2002 (Annexure -7) stating that it was for information and necessary action and with a view that he may beable to present his defence in the meeting of the Samiti. Two days later the Subdivisional Officer, Biraul issued an order under his memo no.345, dated 15.4.2002 (Annexure -9). In this order it was stated that 26 members of the Samiti had asked to call an emergent meeting of the Samiti for presenting a vote of no -confidence against the Pramukh and accordingly the Block Development Officer was directed to give notice to the members, summoning an emergent meeting of the Samiti on 23.4.2002. In pursuance of the direction given to him by the Subdivisional Officer, the Block Development Officer issued notices under his memo no. 504, dated 16.4.2002 fixing the special meeting of the Samiti on 24.4.2002. In the meeting thus held on 24.4.2002, 35 members were present; 19 members voted in favour and 16 in opposition of the motion of no confidence. The motion was thus passed by a majority vote, leading to the petitioner 'sremoval from office.

(3.) MR . Tara Kant Jha, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the manner in which the meeting of the Samiti was held to pass the vote of no -confidence was completely foreign to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Mr. Jha submitted that it was not a legal meeting but an 'official ' meeting in the sense that it was not held in the manner provided for in law but was summoned on the direction of the District Magistrate and the Subdivisional Officer who have no authority in the matter. He also submitted that the meeting was further bad as it was held without giving seven clear days notice to the petitioner.