PHOOLMANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Petitioner Smt. Phoolmanti Devi was elected as Pramukh of Noorsarai Panchayat Samiti. It appears that certain members of the Panchayat Samiti were aggrieved by her conduct, therefore, they submitted a letter to convene a meeting on 5-6-2003 making certain allegations against the present petitioner and expressing their no confidence. The meeting was requisitioned but unfortunately was adjourned. Thereafter, on 18-7-2003 some of the members of the Panchayat Samiti again submitted a no confidence requisition and required the Pramukh/authority to requisition the meeting. The meeting was directed to be held on 26-7-2003. A notice was issued on 19-7-2003. From Annexure-1 it appears that the meeting was convened on 26-7-2003. The present petitioner and the Up-pramukh Smt. Renu Kumari (petitioner in CWJC No. 10636 of 2003) came to take part in the meeting but after some time, they left the meeting. With the consent of the majority, one Bhikhari Prasad was nominated to chair the meeting and thereafter the resolution was considered and ultimately no confidence motion was carried out. On the very same day, the Up Pramukh Renu Kumari was also removed from her office. Each of the persons so removed, being aggrieved by their removal are before this Court. At the instance of Smt. Phoolmanti Devi CWJC No. 8037 of 2003 has been filed and CWJC No. 10636 of 2003 has been filed by Renu Devi and another.

(3.) Learned counsel for each of the petitioners have submitted that the requisition to convene the meeting was received on 18-7-2003, and notices were issued on 19-7-2003 directing that the meeting would be held on 26-7-2003. According to them, in accordance with Section 44(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seven clear days' notice was not issued, therefore, conduction and convening of the meeting was bad and any resolution taken in that meeting was also illegal. It is also submitted that action taken against the petitioners is bad and is motivated, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.