BRIJ NANDAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the communication dated 7.11.2002 (Annexure -8) of the Secretary, Rural Development Department addressed to the District Magistrate, Jehanabad in which it has been observed that the no -confidence motion passed against respondent no.5 is illegal and she will continue as Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Jehanabad.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the decision of the present writ application are that the pettioner is an elected member of Jehanabad Panchayat Samiti whereas respondent no.5 Rekha Devi happens to be its Pramukh and a special meeting to consider the no -confidence motion against respondent no.5 was held on 28.9.2002 in which out of the total number of the elected members of the Panchayat Samiti i.e. 20, 19 members including respondent no. 5 were present. According to the petitioner himself out of 19 members present in the meeting 14 took part in the voting and 5 abstained from the voting and out of 14 members who voted in the special meeting, 7 voted in favour of .the no -confidence motion and 7 against the motion. According to the petitioner, in case of equality of votes, the Up -Pramukh who was presiding the meeting, gave the casting vote in favour of no -confidence motion and accordingly, the motion of no -confidence was passed on 28.9.2002 by majority. When this fact came to the notice of the Secretary of the Rural Development Department, he by the impugned order, held that the motion of no -confidence passed against respondent no.5 is not in accordance with law and accordingly, directed that respondent no. 5 shall continue as the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti.

(3.) MR . Tiwary appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5, however, contends that the State Government has the power to call for any record of the Panchayat and when the record was called for, an apparent illegality was found and the State Government held the no -confidence motion passed against the petitioner to be illegal and accordingly directed for continuance of respondent no.5 as Pramukh.