SANTOSH KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been preferred seeking quashing of the requisition dated 04.07.2018 submitted by the requisitionists in the office of the respondent no.6 i.e. the Block Development Officer, Purnea East-cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Purnea East, District-Purnea which was originally addressed to the petitioners praying for convening the special meeting of the Block Panchayat Samiti for consideration of 'no confidence motion' against the petitioners.

(2.) The grounds taken for quashing of the requisition dated 04.07.2018 are (i) that in view of the provisions contained in sub-section 3(i) of Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2006') any such requisition has to be presented before the Pramukh with a copy to the executive officer and not vice-versa; (ii) because sub- section 3(i) of Section 44 of the Act of 2006 has prescribed a particular procedure for presentation of the requisition for convening the special meeting to consider no confidence motion against the Pramukh and Up Pramukh the requisition has to be presented in the procedure prescribed and not in any other manner. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheikh Hassmuddin & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in, 2015 3 PLJR 203. The attention of this Court has been drawn towards the observations of the Court in paragraph 10 of the said judgment. Further, the learned counsel has relied upon an order of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Geeta Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in, 2015 1 PLJR 790 to submit that if a special meeting has been called by the requisitionists without waiting for sufficient time for calling of the special meeting giving seven days clear notice for such meeting well within 15 days time prescribed for that purpose in terms of Section 44(3)(i) of the Act, such special meeting will be illegal.

(3.) On the facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in paragraph '9' of the writ application a statement has been made that the petitioner no.1 was available in the Block Headquarter on all the seven days in the first week of July, 2018 but no members of the Block Panchayat Samiti had ever visited the petitioner no.1 office or his residence for presentation of their requisition to convene the special meeting of Block Panchayat Samiti. He has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements made in paragraph 15 of the writ application wherein it is stated that "in this case, the requisition has never been presented before the petitioner no.1 in compliance of mandatory procedure as contemplated under Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 44 of the Gram Panchayat Act. Since, it was directly submitted before the respondent no.6, the requisition is not a valid requisition in the eye of law, which is fit to be set aside."