GAJENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner who was holding the office of Pramukh of Supaul Panchayat Samiti is before this Court with the submission that contrary to provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 44 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 instead of serving a notice of no confidence upon the Pramukh it was produced before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who forwarded the same to the Block Development Officer and the Block Development Officer in his turn opened the file and thereafter the same was brought before the Pramukh. The petitioner says that if the notice is not served upon the Pramukh in accordance with law that is Sub-section (3) of Section 44 no meeting can be conducted to consider the said motion of no confidence. In support of his submission the petitioner has filed the copy of the motion of no confidence to show and say that the notice in fact was sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The respondent No. 6 in his counter affidavit and the respondents No. 7 to 25, 28, 30 to 43, 48, 63, 64, 67 and 68 in their separate counter affidavit have submitted that the notice of no confidence was sent to the Pramukh. He refused to receive the same therefore, the notice was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer to send the same to the Block Development Officer and the Block Development Officer after opening the file sent the said notice to the Pramukh.

(3.) On the last date learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice in original did not bear the words, "Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti, Supaul" but in the documents filed by the respondent No. 6 and other respondents such interpolations have been made to show that in fact the notice of no confidence was sent to the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. I had called for the original records. The records are before me. After going through the notice which was sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and others started submitting that in fact the original notice was given to the petitioner much before it was sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer and as he refused to give the receipt etc. The notice was given to the Sub-Divisional Officer so that the matter is proceeded further. When this Court required him to show any covering letter or document he submitted that there was none. When he was confronted with the proceedings dated 15.9.2003 learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and others started submitting that after this notice was given to the Sub-Divisional Officer another notice was given to the Pramukh. He informed the Court that identical notices were prepared in duplicate one was sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer and the other after deletion of the words "Sub-Divisional Officer" and addition of the words "Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti" was sent to the petitioner. When this Court asked the learned counsel he submitted that both the notices were prepared in original. Page No. 22 of the affidavit of the respondents No. 7 and others is the photocopy said to be, of the notice sent to the Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti. The original records contain the letter dated 1.9.2003 sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul. Page 22 annexed to the counter affidavit of respondents No. 7 and others in fact is a true photocopy and page 13 of the show cause/counter of the respondent No. 6 in fact are true photocopy of the original. It would clearly appear that the letter was prepared for Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul and thereafter certain deletions were made and the document contained at page 22 and page 13 was later on prepared. If two documents are prepared on the same day and are signed and counter signed by certain persons even on the same day, they would not be identical in every detail. It is to be seen that barring the dates mentioned as 1.9.2003 and 2.9.2003 every detail is identical and photocopy.