RENU DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. 3. 4. 5.

………………………… Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR Collector, Jamui Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamuji Block Development Officer, Barhat, Jamui Ropen Kumar Singh, son of Sushil Kumar Singh, resident of village and Post Office Barhat, Jamui

Mira Devi, wife of Niranjan Singh, resident of village and Post Office Malleypur, Police-Station Barhat, District Jamui Kausilya Devi, wife of Karu Saw, resident of village and Post office Darba, Police Station Barhat, Jamui

Mahendra Paswan, son of Munshi Paswan, resident of village Chujhidih, Police Station Barhat, Jamui Janki Devi, wife of Titar Paswan, resident of village and Post Office Patauna, Police Station Barhat, Jamui

Dipendra Singh, son of Adhik Singh, resident of village Bhaluka, Post Office and Police Station Barhat, Jamui

Rajesh Hansda, son of Raghunath Hansda, resident of village Pasrahi,

13 Police Station Khadigram, Police Station Barhat, Jamui Ramdeo Manjhi, son of Late Baijy Manjhi, resident of village Katka Post Office Numar, Police Station Barhat, Jamui Naresh Karo, son of Basudeo Kora, resident of village Gurmaha, Post Office and Police Station Barhat, Jamui

Arvind Thakur, son of Saryug Thakur, resident of village and post office …………………….. Respondents. Katanua, Police Station Barhat, Jamui ----------- For the petitioner :- M/S Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Parmanand Pd. Narayan Sahi, Advocate & C.S.Singh Azad, Advocate

For the State :- Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate, J.C. to GP 4 For Resp. Nos.5 to 13 :- Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh -----------

30.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondents and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the resolution dated 26.7.2008 passed in the special meeting of Barhat Panchayat 2 Samiti, District- Jamui by which no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice for convening the special meeting was issued on 19.7.2008 by which the date of the meeting was fixed on

26.7.2008 and thus the same is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 46(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. In support of the said proposition, learned counsel relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Anita Kumari Vs. The State and others and an analogous case: 2005(1) PLJR 457, in paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of which it has been held as follows:- “11. This Court in catena of the cases has decided that in accordance with section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act when a special meting is convened then seven clear days margin between the date of the notice and the date of the meeting has to be maintained and if that is not done the requisition of the meeting and convening of the meeting would be bad and any resolution passed in such a meeting would also fall to ground.

12. In the present matter, annexure-4 under to be the meeting was observed convened on 17.1.2003 does not meet the mandatory requirement of law. Consequently, annexure-4, the letter no. 22 dated 10.1.2003 the meeting on directing convening of 17.1.2003 is quashed. As a consequence of it, the resolution passed at the meeting dated 17.1.2003 is also quashed.” In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the notice dated 19.7.2008 being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 46(4) of the Act, the same is 3 quashed and so also the resolution passed in the special meeting held pursuant to the said notice dated 26.7.2008 expressing no confidence in the petitioner as Pramukh of the said Panchayat Samiti. The writ application is accordingly allowed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)