Budhani Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors

----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the State: Mr. Lalan Kumar, Asst Counsel to GP 22 For private Resp.:- Mr. Rajeeva Roy, Advocate ------------ - 3 -

28.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for appearing respondents and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has come to this Court for setting aside the notice dated 15.9.2008 issued by the Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Kishanpur Panchayat Samiti by which special meeting for considering the no confidence motion has been convened on 23.9.2008 on the request of one-third of the directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the requisition dated 22.8.2008 was brought to her notice for the first time by the Executive Officer on 4.9.2008 and accordingly on

9.9.2008 the petitioner passed an order fixing the date as 18.9.2008 for convening the meeting. However, the Executive Officer instead of acting on the said valid and legal order of the petitioner, had proceeded on the basis of the applications filed by one-third of the directly elected members on 5.9.2008 and fixed the date of the meeting on 23.9.2008 which is violative of the provisions of Section 44(3) (i) of the Bihar Panchyat Raj Act, 2006. Learned counsels for the State and for the private respondents, on the other hand, submit that the requisition itself was addressed to the Pramukh and sent on 22.8.2008 and thereafter it was sent to the Pramukh through peon on 25.8.2008 but she had refused to receive the same on the ground that she had to go for flood relief work and would receive the same subsequently. The said fact is borne out by the notings of the peon who was sent to serve the notice. - 4 - Subsequently the same was received by the petitioner on 4.9.2008 and thereafter she had fixed the date of the meeting on 18.9.2008 but the file had been placed before the Block Development Officer on

12.9.2008 and thus the provision of seven clear days notice would have been violated and accordingly the date was fixed on 23.9.2008. From a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the time would start running so far as the Pramukh is concerned from 25.8.2008 when the requisition was first presented before her and thus her right to fix the date of the meeting could subsist only till 1.9.2008 since the special meeting itself had to be held within fifteen days from 25.8.2008 including satisfying the requirement of seven clear days notice. That having not been done by the Pramukh, it was open to the Up-Pramukh or one-third of the directly elected members to fix the date of the special meeting and direct the Executive officer to issue notice and take steps accordingly. This Court, therefore, finds that the date of the special meeting was correctly fixed by one-third of the directly elected members. However, since the said date has elapsed, therefore, the notice dated 15.9.2008 has itself ceased to have effect by the passage of time. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. It will however, be open to the Up Pramukh or one-third of the directly elected members of the Panchyat Samiti to fix a fresh date of special meeting for considering the no-confidence motion against the petitioner after complying with the other requirements of law. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)