RAMENDRA RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, learned Assisting Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.-XI for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary for the private respondents, i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 14. The petitioners had initially questioned the requisition dated 24.7.2014 placed at Annexure-5 to the writ petition, inter alia, on grounds of being contrary to the provisions underlying Section, 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as regarding the allegations set out thereunder as well as its mode of presentation. While the matter was pending consideration that the notice convening special meeting was issued by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nauhatta, District-Rohtas on 9.8.2014 convening special meeting on 16.8.2014 which was sought to be challenged through interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 5840 of 2014, inter alia, on grounds of absence of seven days notice in terms of the provisions underlying Section 46(4) of 'the Act' and since in the meanwhile the no confidence motion has been passed on 19.8.2014 unseating the petitioners from the post of Pramukh and Up Pramukh and the same is sought to be questioned on grounds that no discussion took place as mandated under Section 44(3)(vi) of 'the Act'.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated is that even earlier a requisition was moved against the petitioners on 3.7.2013 a copy whereof is placed at Annexure-1 and the motion being discussed in the special meeting held on 23.7.2013, it failed and thus the petitioners continued on the post of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh. The proceedings are placed at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Immediately on expiry of one year of the failing of the first motion that the present requisition was moved on 24.7.2014 and was duly forwarded by the Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer on 24.7.2014 itself to Pramukh. The copies are placed at Annexures-5 and 5/1 to the writ petition.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the requisition was received by the petitioner Pramukh through speed post as admitted by him in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application. What is being questioned is the manner of service and not the absence of service on the petitioners who happen to be the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti in question. Even after receiving the requisition, the petitioner Pramukh instead of proceeding in the manner required under Section 44(3)(i) of 'the Act', issued show cause to the Executive Officer questioning the manner of presentation. Since, the petitioner Pramukh failed to fix the date for convening special meeting in the manner provided under Section 44(3)(i) of 'the Act', the requisitionists took a decision and accordingly informed the Executive Officer that the date of special meeting was fixed on 16.8.2014 vide notice circulated on 9.8.2014. Though the petitioners have sought to question the said notice on grounds of absence of 7 days clear notice in between the notice and the date fixed for special meeting but the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State encloses the corrigendum bearing Memo No. 991 dated 9.8.2014 placed at Annexure-J to the counter affidavit and following which a fresh notice was issued on the same day, i.e. 9.8.2014 with the corrected date of special meeting, i.e. 19.8.2014. The special meeting thereafter was held on 19.8.2014 when the motion was passed and the petitioners have lost the confidence of the house.