MAKSUDAN RAUT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the resolution dated 9-8-1980 (Annexure 1) of the Panchayat Samiti, Andhara Tharhi Prakhand, adopting a motion of 'No confidence' in the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh (petitioners 1 and 2) and the orders of the respondent No. 2, the Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Panchayat Rajya, Directorate of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, contained in Annexures 6 and 7, which were passed on the petition filed by petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 78 of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to quash the proceedings of the meeting dated 9-8-1986.

(2.) The question of law to be decided in this case is as to whether there was any invalidity in convening and conducting the said meeting for consideration of the motion, and the effect of the subsequent participation of the petitioners 1 and 2 in the election which followed the defeat of the said petitioners in the meeting. Facts

(3.) The aforesaid Panchayat Samiti consisted of 24 members but one of them had died and, therefore, at the relevant time there were only 23 members. The notice of 'no confidence' motion, copy of which is Annexure 4 was issued, by the Pramukh on the requisition of the members of the Samiti in accordance with Section 32 of the Act and a notice under Rule 7 of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1963 was also issued calling for a special meeting on 9-8-1980, stating therein that the said meeting would consider the application of Sri Sukhlal Mahto and others. The convenor of the meeting was the aforesaid Sukhlal Mahto, who was later on transposed from the category of petitioners to that of the respondents 18 members of the Samiti participated in the said meeting and 12 of them supported the motion of 'no confidence'. The motion thus having been earned with the Pramukh ceased to hold the said office in accordance with the provisions mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act which says that "if the motion is carried with the support of not less than two-third 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." It may also be mentioned that on 13-1-1981 a new Pramukh (respondent No. 5) and Up-Pramukh (respondent No. 12) were elected in the vacancies caused on the above account in which petitioners 1 and 2 had participated so much so that petitioner No. 1 had also sought for his re-election and was defeated. It has been stated in the petition filed on 28-4-1981 for vacating the order of interim stay that respondent No. 5 was thereafter also elected as the Member of the Madhubani District Board and that in the subsequent meetings of the Panchayat Samiti after the election of respondents Nos. 5 and 12, all the petitioners attended and participated. However, an election petition has been filed by petitioner No. 1 before the Election Tribunal challenging the said election held on 13-1-1981.