ORSIL PASWAN SON OF LATE SHANICHAR PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the appearing respondents, learned Counsel for the State Election Commission and learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner has filed the present writ application with a prayer for quashing the entire proceeding dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure - 3) of the no -confidence motion brought against him including the resolution of no -confidence passed therein and for other consequential orders.

(2.) THE stand of the petitioner is that an undated requisition, which according to the petitioner was addressed only to the Block Development Officer -cum - Executive Officer, Bhagwanpur Panchayat Samiti, Begusarai, was made in which subsequently by forgery and manipulation the name of the Pramukh was inserted above that of the Block Development Officer and further manipulation regarding fixing the date of the meeting on 21.7.2008 was also made. It is further alleged that the said requisition was placed before the Executive Officer on 11.7.2008 who himself fixed the date on 11.7.2008 and issued the notices (Annexure -1 series) fixing the date for considering the no - confidence motion against the petitioner -Pramukh on 21.7.2008. Thereafter a meeting was convened on the said date.

(3.) In the said meeting, the no -confidence motion was passed by 11 to 10. votes. It is alleged that the said result was brought about by tampering the members to vote in support of the no -confidence motion by the Executive Officer, in respect of which on the same date eleven members including the Up -Pramukh made their physical Parade before the District Magistrate, Begusarai and made him aware of the illegality and irregularity committed by the Block Development Officer -cum -Executive Officer. Thereafter enquiry was directed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai to be made by the Deputy Development Commissioner. In his report dated 26.7.2008, the Deputy Development Commissioner made certain adverse observations against the action of the Block Development Officer -cum -Executive Officer. It is further stated that the 11 directly elected members including the Up -Pramukh had also made a representation before the State Election Commission.