AWADHESH KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing an order of the State Government, staying the operation of the no-confidence motion of the Panchayat Samiti, Naugachia, dated the 14th December, 1974, against its Pramukh, Chandradeo Thakur, respondent No. 4, and directing the said respondent to function as Pramukh till further orders of the State Government, a copy of which, has been filed as Annexure '4'.

(2.) Necessary facts for the disposal of this writ application need be stated. Respondent No. 4, Chandradeo Thakur, was elected as the Pramukh of the Naugachia Panchayat Samiti in, the year 1967. On the 19th November, 1974, petitioner No. 1 proposed a no-confidence motion against respondent No. 4, on the grounds mentioned therein, which need not be stated. The notice was supported by 11 members, the requisite one-third of the total strength of the Panchayat Samiti, which was 26, including the Pramukh and the Up-Pramukh, as provided under Section 32 (1) of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 (Bihar Act VI of 1962), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The notice was received by the Secretary of the Panchayat Samiti on the 5th December, 1974. A meeting to consider the no-confidence motion was held on the 14th December, 1974, and was attended by 22 members. The no-confidence motion was supported by 16 members, being the requisite two-thirds majority for passing a no-confidence motion, as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act. A copy of the said resolution has been filed as Annexure '2'. Thereafter, a notice duly signed by the President, Shree Jaikant Kumar, and the Secretary of the Samiti, the Block Development Officer, Naugachia, to the effect that a no-confidence motion was passed against respondent No. 4, and that he ceased to be the Pramukh of the Naugachia Panchayat Samiti, was affixed on the notice Board of the office of the Panchayat Samiti, under Section 32 (2) of the Act. A copy of the said notice has been filed as Annexure '3'. It is alleged in the writ application that thereafter respondent No. 4 approached the State Government under Section 78 (1) of the Act and the State Government stayed the operation of the no-confidence motion and also directed that respondent No. 4 will continue to function as Pramukh until further orders, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure '4', which is under challenge In this application.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4.