SATYA NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of the meeting held on 16-10-1982 by which a motion of no confidence was passed against petitioner 1 who was the Pramukh of Chautham Block Panchayat Samity in the district of Khagaria. A copy of the resolution has been filed and marked Aonexure-3.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points which have been raised in this application it will be necessary to state some facts, petitioner 1 was elected as Mukhiya of Kaithu Gram Panchayat in the year 1971 and he was re-elected on the same post in the year 1978. On 7-3-1979 he was elected as a member of the Panchayat Samity and ultimately he was elected as the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samity petitioners 2 to 10 were also elected or co-opted as members of the Panchayat Samity having been elected as Mukhiyas from different Gram Panchayats. Petitioner 1, as it is stated in the petition, had been working satisfactorily but some of the respondents were not satisfied for some reason or the other and, therefore, they planned to oust petitioner 1 from the post of Pramukh. Some of them filed a requisition on 10-10-1982 for convening a special meeting of the Samity for considering a no-confidence motion against petitioner 1. A copy of that requisition has been filed and marked Annexure-1, Petitioner 1 on receipt of the same issued a notice for holding the meeting on 10-10-1982 at 11 A. M. in the Block office. A copy of the notice sent to all the members has been filed and marked Annexure-2. On 16-10-1982 the meeting was held in the Block office and the Up-Pramukh presided over the deliberations of the meet:ng. It is stated in the petition that petitioners 3 and 4 raised objection regarding holding of the meeting on a holiday, which was in clear violation of Rule 3, Bihar panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) but no action was taken and thereafter it is stated that there was a complete pandamoniurn and actually no meeting took place but a proceeding was recorded that no confidence motion by 2/3rd majority was passed against petitioner 1. A copy of the resolution of the meeting held on 16-10-1982 has been filed and marked Annexure-3. A copy of the proceeding was sent by respondent 3 the Up-Pramukh to the persons concerned. A copy of the same has been filed and marked Annexure-4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution the petitioners moved this Court on 6-1-1983 and on 7-1-1983 it was ordered that petitioner 1 will not be disturbed from his office and the case was ultimately admitted on 17-1-1983 and the interim order was to continue during the pendency of this application. 2-A. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent 2 the Secretary of the panchayat Samity in which the allegation that no meeting was held has been completely denied. It has also been asserted that on the requisition filed by some of the respondents, petitioner 1 himself convened the meeting on 16-10-1982 and also participated in the aforesaid meeting. The fact that petitioners 3 and 4 had raised objection regarding holding of the meeting on a holiday has been denied. It has also been averred that there was no pandemonium rather the meeting was held smoothly and no-confidence motion was passed by 2/3rd majority. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 23 in which the same thing has been reiterated and it has been further stated that 21 members voted in favour of no-confidence motion which was more than the required majority. The fact that there was an objection by petitioners 3 and 4 and that there was a pandemonium has also been denied by them.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the meeting was held on a holiday which is in clear violation of Rule 3 of the Rules and in that view of the matter the entire proceedings must be held to be null and void. In this connection reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in Kamlesh Roy v. Rudra Narain (1981 Pat LJR 38) : (AIR 1981 Pat 264) in which it has been held by their Lordships that Rule 3 being a statutory rule puts a complete embargo on a meeting being held on a holiday and, therefore, the meeting which was held on 7th October. 1979 in that case was against the express provision of law and fit to be quashed. The procedure for convening a no-confidence motion has been laid down under Section 32, Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 32 runs thus :--