LAWS(PAT)-2009-4-152

ANU DEVI, WIFE OF SRI SUBODH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA

Decided On April 17, 2009
Anu Devi, Wife Of Sri Subodh Kumar Appellant
V/S
State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General No. 11 for the State and Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate for the appearing private respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 8.9.2008 by which the special meeting for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner -Pramukh of the Raxaul Panchayat Samiti was fixed on 16.9.2008 and also the subsequent resolution taken in the said special meeting by the Panchayat Samiti by which the no confidence motion against the petitioner was passed and further the subsequent election of respondent no. 16 on the said vacant post of Pramukh. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel has raised two points in support of the case of the petitioner. It is firstly submitted that the notice dated 8.9.2008 was only addressed to the directly elected members and the other ex -officio members of the Panchayat Samiti were not issued the notice. It is submitted that although the said members do not have the right to vote in the special meeting but have the right to participate so as to influence the members who are entitled to exercise their right to vote. The said contention is being noticed only to be rejected in view of the point having been already decided to the contrary by a detailed order dated 27.11.2008 passed in CWJC No. 11518/2008 (Suryadeo Kumar & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. and its analogous case), wherein it was held as follows: - "Thus on a consideration of the entire matters, this Court is of the view that the notice for special meeting for considering No Confidence Motion is required to be sent only to the directly elected members who have right to participate and vote in the said motion and not the ex -officio members."

(3.) THE other and principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the requisition was presented before the petitioner -Pramukh on 12.8.2008 which she had rejected by order dated 25.8.2008 on the ground that the signatures on the said requisition were forged and had accordingly directed the Executive Officer to enquire into the matter and ensure that the requisition was signed by the genuinely directly elected members in his presence. It is submitted that thereafter instead of proceeding with the said requisition a further requisition was presented before the Up -Pramukh for convening the special meeting which was not signed by two of the earlier members but was signed by another member who was not a requisitionist in the earlier requisition dated 12.8.2008. On the basis of the said requisition the Up -Pramukh fixed the date of the special meeting on 16.9.2008 and pursuant to the same the special meeting was held. It is submitted by learned counsel that the same being a fresh requisition, it is invalid and illegal since it has neither been addressed nor presented before the Pramukh and would therefore be violative of Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. In support of the same, learned counsel relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Nirmala Singh and Another V/s. State of Bihar and Others: 2006(1) PLJR 129, para 2 of which is quoted below: - "Having produced Annexure -1 and having failed to explain how he got it, it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that he did not receive the original of the Annexure -1 at the time when a copy of Annexure -1 was served upon the Executive Officer. The petitioner did not convene a meeting as he was requested by Annexure -1. The req - uisitionists thereupon requested the Executive Officer to issue a notice and the Executive Officer, without keeping on record evidence of service of Annexure -1 to the petitioner, issued the notice convening the meeting and thereby acted improperly. The Act obliges the requisitionists to make the requisition a valid requisition to submit the same to the Pramukh. Unless the requisition is submitted to the Pramukh, the requisition itself is invalid. Without serving the requisition to the Pramukh, the requisitionists cannot ask the Executive Officer to convene the meeting."