RANJU DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anisul Haque A.C. to A.A.G.-9 for the State, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents except for respondent No. 12 and Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey for the respondent No. 12

(2.) The two petitioners herein are the Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively of Zila Parishad, Aurangabad and are aggrieved by the order bearing memo No. 888 dated 11.12.2015 whereby the District Magistrate, Aurangabad while expressing his opinion on the view taken by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Aurangabad as present in Annexure-6 has directed for holding of a special meeting on 21.12.2015 for consideration of the no confidence motion moved by the members of the Zila Parishad, Aurangabad as against the two petitioners herein.

(3.) Mr. Alok Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners while questioning such opinion of the District Magistrate has submitted that these petitioners were elected members of the Zila Parishad and were subsequently also elected as the Chairman and Vice-Chairman thereof in the year 2011. It is stated that the petitioners were removed from their respective post under a no confidence motion moved on 5.7.2013 which was passed on 8.8.2013 but were re-elected against the post again on 8.9.2013 and have continued on their respective posts since then. It is the submission of Mr. Chaudhary that vide Bihar Act, 15 of 2015 several amendments were incorporated in the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) including an amendment to Sec. 70 of the Act whereby Sec. 70(4)(ii) was amended to add a clause which provided that a no confidence motion can be brought only once in the whole tenure of an Adhyaksha or Up-adhyaksha. The said amendment has been notified in the Gazette on 27.8.2015. He submits that despite the amendments so incorporated, another motion was introduced against the two petitioners vide requisition present at Annexure-4 on 2.12.2015. The petitioners objected to the motion by filing a representation to such effect before the Executive Officer requesting him not to proceed with the motion, a copy of which is present at Annexure-5 and which was acted upon by the Deputy Development Commissioner vide letter dated 8.12.2015 present at Annexure-6 whereby the no confidence motion moved was rejected. The matter reached the District Magistrate who vide impugned order bearing No. 888 dated 11.12.2015 superseded the view expressed by the Deputy Development Commissioner to direct for holding of the special meeting to consider the motion moved against the petitioners on 21.12.2015. Mr. Chaudhary, primarily has questioned the view of the District Magistrate to uphold the initiation of the motion on two grounds namely: