VIDYA BHARATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Maruth Nath Roy, learned AC to learned SC-4 for the respondent/s.

(2.) Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) in paragraph no. 1 of the writ petition, which inter alia is reproduced hereinafter:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an honest man and from bare perusal of the allegation made in the requisition for holding a special meeting for 'no confidence motion' it cannot be clearly stated that petitioner has misappropriated the fund or in absence of any specific allegation that he has not been holding meeting of the Zila Parishad within the specified times from time to time as prescribed under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In these background, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner found the allegation to be without any substance and the requisition being without fulfilling the requirement of Sec. 70 (4) of the Act and there is no requirement to call for any 'no confidence motion'.