SITARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially this writ application was filed for quashing the notice dated 22.2.2003 issued by the Executive Officer communicated to the members that a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion brought against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh shall be held on 28.2.2003. Thereafter, the no confidence motion has been passed and their prayer is to quash the said resolution.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner's are Pramukh and Up- Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti Narhat. A notice was given by the members to convene special meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioners. The Executive Officer, by the impugned notice dated 22.2.2003 (Annexure-3), conveyed to the members that the meeting to consider the no confidence motion shall be held on 28.2.2003. In the meeting so held, no confidence motion was passed against the petitioners and during the pendency of the application, it is common ground that other members have been elected as Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti.

(3.) In the writ application, several points have been raised but when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notice informing to the members about the date of the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion, does into conform to the requirement of Section 44(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It is pointed out that the notice issued on 27th of February, 2003 conveying holding of a special meeting on 28.3.2003 does not give seven clear days notice as required under Section 44 (4) of the Act. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Rambha Sinha v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2004 (2) BLJR 1408, in which it has been held as follows ;--