KOKILA KHATOON AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the 14 members of the Panchayat Samiti, who had expressed want of confidence in Pramukh and Smt. Archana Meenakshee, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The prayers of the petitioners in the instant writ petition are three-fold. Firstly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the requisition dated 18.06.2018 addressed to petitioner no.1 but filed in the office of respondent no.7 whereby and whereunder the requisitionist members of the Block Panchayat Samiti, Dighal Bank (for short 'Panchayat Samiti') have requested the petitioner no.1 to convene the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti to consider their want of confidence against her. Secondly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notice dated 27.06.2018 issued under the signature of respondent no. 7 and contained in his letter no. 702 addressed to petitioner no. 1 whereby the petitioner no. 1 has been requested to attend the special meeting of Panchayat Samiti on 06.07.2018 convened for consideration of want of confidence against her and petitioner no. 2. Thirdly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing proceedings of special meeting dated 06.07.2018 issued under memo no. 749 dated 06.07.2018 wherein the motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioners has been passed and they have been removed from their respective posts.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner no.1 had contested for the post of Pramukh and the petitioner no. 2 had contested for the post of Up-Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti. They were declared elected on the respective posts on 18.06.2016. Since then, they were performing their duties as Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. A requisition was moved by 14 members of the Panchayat Samiti being respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 ,24, 27 and 28 on 18.06.2018 expressing want of confidence in petitioner no. 1 and requesting therein for convening a special meeting for deliberation on the motion of no confidence. The said requisition was filed in the office of respondent no. 7 and was forwarded by the respondent no. 7 in file on 23.06.2018 before petitioner no. 1 for fixing a date for convening special meeting. The petitioner no. 1 returned the file to the respondent no. 7 on 23.06.2018 itself stating therein that because of her poor health, she is not in a position to convene the special meeting. Thereafter, respondent no.7 issued notice on 27.06.2018 to the petitioners and other members of Panchayat Samiti for holding the special meeting on 06.07.2018 to consider motion of want of confidence in the petitioners, i.e. Pramukh and Up-Pramukh. Being aggrieved by the aforestated notice dated 27.06.2018, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition on 05.07.2018 and since the special meeting was already held on 06.07.2018 in which the 14 requisitionist members participated and voted in favour of the motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioners, the motion was passed and the petitioners have been removed from their respective posts. Being aggrieved by the requisition passed in the special meeting, interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the proceeding of the special meeting dated 06.07.2018.