HARI MADHO SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the resolution of no confidence motion brought against the petitioner -Pram ukh of Madhaura Panchayat Samiti in the special meeting held on 28.7.2008 and further for quashing the requisition for calling the special meeting to move no confidence motion against the petitioner -Pram ukh vide letter dated 8.7.2008 claiming that the same has been made in contravention to the provisions of Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and further for consequential reliefs. The short facts of this case are that pursuant to requisition dated 8.7.2008 for calling the special meeting for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner -Pramukh of Madhaura Panchayat Samiti in the District of Chapra the special meeting was convened on 28.7.2008. Out of thirty elected members as many as 29 members participated in the special meeting and cast their votes. The votes in favour of no confidence motion were 16 while 13 were against no confidence motion. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was declared to have vacated the office of the Pramukh.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that a minor being son of respondent No. 24, Sarswati Devi, was permitted to cast the vote for respondent No. 24 and also respondent No. 20, Aamna Khatoon. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and Rules framed thereunder for providing any assistance to any person for casting of votes during no confidence motion. It is contended that in any case Rule 63 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2007, relied upon by the respondents, only pertains to election held under the said Act and does not have any application to the special meeting for considering no confidence motion. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in any view of the matter even Rule 63 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 provides for assistance being granted to a voter who is blind or disabled by a person who is not less than 18 years of age, and that even during election, there is no provision for providing assistance to any person on the ground of illiteracy since neither respondent No. 20 nor respondent No. 24 is either blind or disabled. It is, therefore, submitted that there has thus been a violation of the secrecy of the ballot paper also, which is mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act.