Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the 2 directly members of the Panchayat Samiti as party-respondents in the case during the course of the day. I.A.No.1913/2009 The interlocutory application has been amendment of the prayer in the writ petition so as to quash the proceedings dated 10.2.2009 by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Up-Pramukh by a motion of no confidence as also memo no. 84 dated 10.2.2009 by which the said fact has been communicated to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, respondent no. 3 and also to stay the further proceedings for re-election to the said post fixed on 30.3.2009 in terms of the letter no. 249 dated 21.3.2009 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhagalpur. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for amendment is allowed. I.A. No. 1913/09 is accordingly disposed of. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated

2.2.2009 issued by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sabaur, respondent no.3 by which the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti was called to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner on 10.2.2009 as also the resolution of no confidence motion against the petitioner passed on 10.2.2009. The requisition for holding the special 3 meeting for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner was presented on 16.7.2008 before the Pramukh, Sabaur Panchayat Samiti with a copy to the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer. The Executive Officer thereafter moved the matter before the Pramukh in the file with a request to fix the date of meeting on

30.1.2009 and the requisition was signed by 11 out of 16 directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti out of whom 8 members had also filed their affidavit. Against the same the petitioner- Up-Pramukh filed an application before the Pramukh on 21.1.2009 denying the allegations and his application was also signed by 8 members and out of 8 members 7 had filed their affidavits. Four members were found to have signed both the applications and it was therefore held by the Pramukh that it would not be proper to fix the date of the no confidence motion and he requested the Block Development Officer to discuss the matter with the Legal Advisor of the Government before any further action is taken in the matter. Thereafter six members had filed a requisition on

27.1.2009 (Annexure-5) praying for holding a special meeting for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner. The matter was again placed before the Pramukh and thereafter he fixed the date of special meeting on 10.2.2009 and accordingly the impugned notice dated 2.2.2009 was issued. In the said meeting on 10.2.2009 the no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner by 9 directly 4 elected members voting in favour of the no confidence motion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with respect to the earlier requisition the Pramukh having directed the Executive Officer to take legal opinion and the matter was still pending and therefore, the second requisition was not maintainable and the same cannot be considered. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in course of the special meeting the charges as given in the notice were not discussed and thus the proceedings shall fall to the ground. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was cross voting by two members in the sense that in the earlier application dated 21.1.2009 they had supported the Up-Pramukh and for the said reason also, according to him, the resolution is bad. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel that one of the directly elected members who has been declared absconder by the Court was also permitted to participate in the meeting and allowed to vote. So far as the question of consideration of a second requisition is concerned, it is evident that finding discrepancy in the requisition filed earlier and the application filed by the Up-Pramukh, the Pramukh had rejected the same on the ground of contradiction with a direction to the Block Development Officer to take legal opinion in the matter. In the said circumstances, this Court does not consider it illegal for the members to have proceeded afresh in the matter by filing 5 a valid fresh requisition. The same having been filed, the date was fixed in accordance with law by the Pramukh for holding the special meeting for considering no confidence motion on 10.2.2009 and thereafter no confidence motion having been passed against the petitioner this Court does not consider any illegality either in the requisition, notice dated 2.2.2009 or in the resolution passed on

10.2.2009 pursuant to the same. As regards the discussion of charges in the meeting, normally this Court would not like to go into the details of the proceedings of the Panchayat Samiti in such matter which are in-house proceedings and it is for the members of the Panchayat Samiti to consider or not to consider and hold detailed discussion on the various charges and the manner in which the minutes are recorded is not for this Court to consider. It is evident that the petitioner was not prevented from giving his explanation to each of the charges and thus the requirement of Section 44(3) (vii) was duly complied and no grievance can be made by the petitioner on that count. The objection of the petitioner regarding cross voting has to be noted to be rejected because under Section 44(3)(vii) of the Act the voting has to be on secret ballot and it is not the case of the petitioner that secrecy of the ballot had not been observed. Further, the mere filing of the requisition or even any application in favour of the person against whom no confidence motion has been moved does not 6 at all detract from the right of the directly elected members at the final stage to vote as they deem fit and in fact it is open even to the requisitionist to ultimately not support the motion and vote against it. Similarly, the other members who may have filed any application or affidavit in favour of the petitioner were entitled to exercise their vote finally as they wished after the conclusion of the discussion during the consideration of the no-confidence motion. Hence the said ground has no legal legs to stand. Lastly, with respect to the contention regarding the member who has been declared absconder being allowed to vote, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any provision in the Panchayat Raj Act according to which the said absconder is not permitted to vote during the proceedings. Hence, on that ground also the proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, there does not appear to be any merit in the writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)