DHIRENDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is from the interim order in the writ petition, which stayed the special meeting convened on 15/2/2024 to consider the no-confidence motion against the Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat; the writ petitioner. In the writ petition, the Up-Pramukh, who is the writ petitioner, challenged the convening of the special meeting to consider the no-confidence motion. When the appeal came before us, we called for the writ petition also since the disposal of the appeal would lead to the disposal of the writ petition itself.

(2.) The learned Single Judge in the impugned order in appeal, has referred to L.P.A. No.115 of 2024 which dealt with the no-confidence motion against the Adhyaksh of the Zila Parishad, Darbangha on 12/1/2024. The learned Single Judge stayed the special meeting convened to consider the no-confidence motion against the writ petitioner/Up- Adhyaksh only since the appeal was pending which related to the no-confidence motion moved and carried against the Adhyaksh of the very same Zila Parishad. The L.P.A. has been disposed of by judgment dtd. 22/2/2024. Therein, the contention raised was whether the requisition made on 3/1/2024 could be moved in the Council under Sec. 70(4)(ii) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which prohibited any no-confidence motion within 2 years form the date of election. It was found that Adhyaksh and Up- Adhyaskh were elected on 3/1/2022 and on 2/1/2024, the two year period got expired. The no-confidence motion moved and carried against the Adhyaksh on 12/1/2024 was approved. However, since the Up-Adhyaksh was not in the country when the no-confidence motion was moved and had not appeared in the appeal also, the question of no- confidence motion against the Up-Adhyaksh was left open to be considered in a meeting scheduled, subject also to the decision in the writ petition. Admittedly, a special meeting was scheduled which has been stayed by the learned Single Judge. As of now, the objection with respect to the two year period having not elapsed does not survive.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel Sri Y.V. Giri sought for permission to argue first since he represents the writ petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Up-Adhyaksh had never been entrusted with the duties of the Adhyaksh and hence, there is no reason to permit a no- confidence motion against the Up-Adhyaksh. Sec. 69(2) of the Act of 2006 is pointed out to claim that the role of the Up-Adhyaksh arise only in the absence of the Adhyaksh and Up-Adhyaksh only performs such duties as the Adhyaksh has delegated, in writing. It is also argued that there is no valid ground in the no-confidence to un-seat the Up-Adhyaksh. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in Sindhu Devi and Others v. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2002) 1 PLJR 281.