Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15098 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Zobair Alam S/O Khurshid Alam R/O Village- Inerwa, P.S- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran, Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raxaul, Governemnt Of Bihar. 3. The Block Development Officer, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 4. Up- Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 5. Ijhar Hussain, Member, Panchayat Samiti-3, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 6. Satyanarayan Prasad, Member, Panchayat Samiti-4, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 7. Nageshwar Paswan, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 6, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 8. Vijay Pandey, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 7, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 9. Sunil Singh, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 1, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 10. Sheikh Tasleem, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 2, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 11. Geena Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 18, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. Null Null 12. Lal Kumari Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 22, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 13. Lalbabu Yadav, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 12, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. Null Null 14. Maina Khatoon, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 9, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 15. Kalma Khatoon, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 19, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 16. Laxmi Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 13, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 17. Babuni Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 15, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 18. Chandrauti Devi, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 8, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. 19. Anil Tiwary, Member, Panchayat Samiti- 14, Block- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik For the Respondent/s : Mr. M. D. Dwivedi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER Patna High Court CWJC No.15098 of 2013 (6) dt.19-09-2013 2 6 19-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the intervener, Smt.Amina Devi. Short facts of the case are that a requisition was submitted by the required number of members on 4.7.2013 to the petitioner requesting him to convene a special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against him for certain reasons/charges. It is the case of petitioner that the requisition was received by him on 25.7.2013. However, it is the case of the respondents that the same was received by him on 17.7.2013. For fifteen days, he did not convene the meeting. Hence, on 30.7.2013 the majority of the members of the Panchayat Samiti fixed 12th of August, 2013 as date of meeting on the no-confidence motion against the petitioner and asked the Executive Officer to issue necessary notice in this regard. Notice was issued and meeting was held. In the meeting 20 members voted, out of which 17 voted in favour of the motion and, therefore, no-confidence motion was carried through against the petitioner. The meeting was presided by the Up-Pramukh. Case of the petitioner is that the Up-Pramukh had tendered her resignation on 2.8.2013 which, after waiting for 7 days, he accepted on 10.8.2013. Hence, the meeting was invalid as it was presided over by a person who was not an Up-Pramukh or member
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.15098 of 2013 (6) dt.19-09-2013 3 of the Panchayat Samiti. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-8, the said resignation of the Up-Pramukh and the endorsement thereon by the petitioner. It is his case that acceptance of resignation with the resignation letter was submitted in the office of Executive Officer
Legal Reasoning
on 12.8.2013. Learned counsel submits that, in the circumstances, in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 44 of the 2006 Act, the Up- Pramukh was divested of her status and, therefore, had no legal authority to participate in the meeting of Panchayat Samiti on 12.8.2013 and presided over the same. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavits. The said Up-Pramukh has also appeared and has also intervened in the matter and has filed a counter affidavit. The common stand of the respondents is that the document placed before the Court by the petitioner as resignation of the Up- Pramukh is a forged document. It is their case that for the purposes of some scheme, petitioner had obtained a blank signed paper from the Up-Pramukh, which he was having with him from before. When he found that the majority of the members had requisitioned the meeting on 12.8.2013 and the notices had already been circulated, he used this signed blank paper to get it converted into a resignation letter by the Up-Pramukh as submitted on Patna High Court CWJC No.15098 of 2013 (6) dt.19-09-2013 4 2.8.2013 and accepted the same on 10.8.2013, i.e. before the date of the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. It is their case that all along this paper remained in the pocket of the petitioner and anti-dated letter was produced for the first time by him in the office of the Executive Officer on 16.8.2013 and the back dated receiving was obtained from the contract clerk of the office on a copy of the same of the date 12.8.2013. In support of this the B.D.O. has produced an explanation called for from the said contract clerk as Annexure-J with his counter affidavit and the show cause submitted by the contract clerk as Annexure-K. Learned counsel for the State has placed the explanation of the contract clerk to submit that the contract clerk has admitted in his show cause that, trusting the petitioner, he had received the said letter on 16.8.2013 and had put the date under his endorsement as 12.8.2013 on his request. The Up-Pramukh has also appeared and learned counsel appearing on her behalf submits that she has already instituted an FIR with the police for the alleged forgery committed by the petitioner on her blank letter head with a signature obtained from her for the purposes of some scheme. Learned counsel for the requisitionists members submits that the law enjoins that any resignation by a Pramukh or Up- Patna High Court CWJC No.15098 of 2013 (6) dt.19-09-2013 5 Pramukh has to be in writing under his own hand and no resignation letter signed by the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, but written by some other person can be treated as a valid resignation in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that in the FIR the Up-Pramukh has accepted that she is not very much literate and, therefore, she had given a blank signed letter head to the Pramukh. In view of this controversy, this Court by earlier order had directed the respondents to produce the entire records connected with the matter for perusal. The records have been made available by the B.D.O. to learned counsel for the official respondents. After perusing the same, he submits that prior to 16.08.2013 there is no evidence on record, whatsoever, to show that the Up-Pramukh had tendered her resignation. He submits that in view of the resignation being placed in the records of the Executive Officer on 16.8.2013 purported to have been received by the contract clerk on 12.8.2013, a show cause was issued to him, in response to which he has accepted it trusting the petitioner and on his request he had put an endorsement with date as 12.8.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said resignation letter was with the petitioner as it was addressed to Patna High Court CWJC No.15098 of 2013 (6) dt.19-09-2013 6 him and he was waiting for any withdrawal letter by the Up- Pramukh within 7 days. Since he did not receive the same, he gave the resignation letter to contract clerk in the office of the Executive Officer on 12.8.2013. This is the stand of the petitioner to show his bona fide, but except for his claim, there is no contemporaneous evidence to give credence to the claim of the petitioner that he had received the resignation letter on 2.8.2013. In normal course of business, it was expected from the petitioner to place the said letter in the relevant record and, in case the Up-Pramukh tendered a letter withdrawing the same, that also ought to have been placed in the records. There is no evidence that the same has been done and it is apparent that all through the said alleged resignation letter of the Up-Pramukh was being kept by the petitioner in his own pocket. Even if his case is accepted that the said letter was handed over to the contract clerk on 12.8.2013, it is apparent that prior to that the same was only in his pocket and was not placed in any official record or show or sent to the Executive Officer or any other authority. Moreover a photocopy of the alleged resignation letter of the Up- Pramukh, as contained in Annexure-5, shows that the Up-Pramukh is literate and can write in legible hand. Her signature is clean and in orderly manner with well written letters. This shows that she Patna High Court CWJC No.15098 of 2013 (6) dt.19-09-2013 7 can write Hindi very easily and in normal course. Hence, nothing prevented her from writing the resignation letter in her own hand. If resignation letter had been tendered by her to the petitioner on 2.08.2013 nothing prevented the petitioner from asking her to write resignation letter in her own hand. It has to be presumed that, petitioner being a Pramukh, very well know that a resignation letter typed or written and only signed by the tenderer had no validity in the eye of law. All these circumstances creates a doubt in the bona fide conduct of the petitioner and it prima facie appears that the so-called resignation letter of the Up-Pramukh produced by him in the records of the Executive Officer even on 12.8.2013 was not a genuine one. In the circumstances, on this doubtful evidence, this Court is unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that she had no authority to preside over the special meeting and, therefore, meeting stands vitiated. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. The respondents shall take steps for election on the vacant post of Pramukh in accordance with law as early as possible. Arvind/- (Jayanandan Singh, J)