BISHAMBHAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that he was elected Mukhiya of Parahauti Panchayat, Bhagwanpur Block, in the year 1978. The petitioner was carrying out the duties of his office diligently and honestly. The respondent No. 2 Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhabhua, for reasons best known to him, was not pleased with the petitioner and he instituted a series of criminal proceedings to harass the petitioner. It is not necessary to go into the details of such proceedings. The petitioner came to learn that some meeting of the Panchayat samiti had been held in the month of July to which the petitioner had not been invited. He made an inquiry from the Pramukh but received no reply Subsequently he learnt that the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Panchayat Samiti was called by the Sub-Divisional Officer Bhabhua, respondent No. 2, on 8-7-1987 at 1 p.m. and under threat and coercion he obtained the signatures of the members of the Panchayat on a piece of paper. He set up one Doman Ram as the Mukhiya in charge. The petitioner was thereafter not invited to the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti nor was he invited to the meetings of the Executive Committee. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the action of respondent No. 2 in preventing him from discharging the duties of Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. Annexed with the writ petition as annexure 2 is a notice said to have been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhabhua, respondent No. 2. The notice is dated 1-7-1989 addressed to the members of the Executive Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, informing them that an extraordinary meeting of the committee was to be held at 1 p.m. on 8-7-1987 in the Primary School under the Chairmanship of the District Panchayat Officer. Nothing is said in the notice as to the purpose for which an extraordinary meeting had been called.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that an extraordinary meeting had been called in accordance with law to consider the matter relating to passing of a 'no confidence motion' against the petitioner. It is stated that the meeting was called pursuant to the notice annexure b and not annexure 2. From annexure B it appears that the District Panchayat Officer issued the aforesaid notice on 18-6-1987 calling for an extraordinary meeting of the committee on 8-7-1987. The notice states that the meeting had been called under the proviso to rule 4 (ii) of the Bihar Conduct of Business to Panchayat and Appointment of Executive Committee Rules 1960. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that a meeting was called by the District Panchayat Officer, who is authorised under the rule to call such a meeting. Fifteen days' notice was also duly given. Sub-rule (iv) of rule 4 of the aforesaid rules provides as follows :

(3.) I am, therefore, satisfied that the meeting could by the District Panchayat Officer) pursuant to annexure B was not properly called and convened. The notice does not mention that the extraordinary meeting had been convened for the purpose of removing the Mukhiya. Any decision taken at such a meeting was, therefore, illegal and cannot be enforced.