SMT.POONAM DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
Outcome
Allowed
In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ application is allowed,
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sri Dashrath Prasad Yadav son of LateRamrup Prasad Yadav, resident of Village & P.O. Saidpur, P. S. Mansi, District- Khagaria.
Sri Deepak Kumar son of Late Kapildev Mahto, resident of Village Chhoti Balha P.O. Bari Balha, P. S. Mansi, District- Khagaria.
Sri Pankaj Kumar son of Shivdani Singh, resident of Village Chakhusaini P.O. Mansi, P. S. Mansi, District- Khagaria.
Smt. Prabhawati Devi wife of Sanjay Paswan, resident of Village Araiya, P.O. & P. S. Mansi, District- Khagaria.
Smt. Lalita Yadav wife of Uday Yadav, resident of Village Chukti, P.O. Mansi P. S. Mansi, District- Khagaria.
Smt. Archana Devi wife of Sudhir Kumar Gupta, resident of village CFhakhusaini, P.O. Mansi, P.S. Mansi, District- Khagaria.
Smt. Veena Devi wife of late Nago Yadav, resident of Village Rajajan, P.O. Mansi, P. S. Mansi, District- Khagaria.
Smt. Lalita Devi wife of Ramchandra Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Thatha, P. S. Mansi, District- Khagaria.
Sri Srawan Kumar Singh son of Late Narayan Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Amni, P.O. Amni, P.S. Mansi, District- Khagaria. ----------------Respondents. ------------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raju Giri, Adv. Mr. R. K. Yadav, Adv. For the Respondents :- Mr. S.A. Narayan, Sr. Adv. Mr.Arup Kumar Chongdar, Adv. For the State :- R.S. Singh, J.C. to A.A.G. 6 -----------------
24.11.2008 I.A. No. 5251 of 2008 The interlocutory application has been filed for amendment of the prayer made in the main writ application by adding the relief of - 2 - quashing the notice dated 28.8.2008 issued by respondent no. 4, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khagaria, District- Khagaria through which
5.9.2008 was the date fixed for election of Pramukh of Mansi Panchayat Samiti. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for amendment is allowed. I.A. No. 5251 of 2008 is, accordingly, disposed of. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has come to this Court for declaring and holding the notice dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure-2) issued by the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti Mansi to convene a special meeting to bring resolution of no-confidence against the petitioner as illegal and not in accordance with the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and further to hold and declare the special meeting convened on 22.8.2008 pursuance to the notice dated
14.8.2008, by which the resolution of no-confidence has been passed against the petitioner as illegal and void ab initio and further for quashing the notice dated 28.8.2008 by which the date has been fixed as
Operative part
5.9.2008 for holding the election of the Pramukh of the said Panchayat Samiti. The ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner against the notice dated 14.8.2008 is that the requisition for convening the special meeting for considering the no-confidence motion has neither been addressed to nor presented to the petitioner-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti and thus it was violative of Section 44(3)(i) of the - 3 - Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. It is further contended that the notice does not contain the reasons/charges on the basis of which the no- confidence motion is to be considered being thus violative of Section 44 (3)(v) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents do not seriously challenge the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ application is allowed, the impugned notice dated 14.8.2008 is held to be illegal and not in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and consequently the resolution dated 28.8.2008 expressing no- confidence against the petitioner is also declared to be illegal and void ab initio. That being the position, the notice dated 28.8.2008 for holding fresh election on the post of Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti, Mansi is also quashed. It goes without saying that the ground for quashing the notice being illegality found in the requisition itself, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed afresh in the matter, if so advised. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ application is allowed,
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.